Friday, December 26, 2014

Answering Jimmy Dick's Dumb Questions

Jessie Sanford posted this in the comment thread following the Backsass blog post, For the Geography Impaired....
Another gem from Jimmy Dick
 "Why would the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia be flying in Florida? Why does someone want to flag anything in Florida? What is the point of flagging? If it is to prove one’s lack of historical knowledge, then she proved it in spades, but she does that via her blog all the time.
If she wants to educate people on the purpose of the confederacy she should have been out with shackles and chains and offered to put them on black people to demonstrate what the confederacy was about."

Ole Jimmy sure is a knucklehead.His grasp of history is real shaky at best.
Mr. Sanford, I believe Mr. Dick's tunnel vision has kept him from developing a wholistic view of history. I further believe he's loyal to his leftist agenda and its interpretation of history far, far, far more than he is loyal to history itself.

Since he asked questions, though, I thought I'd answer them. Not that he's interested in answers, especially in areas where his mind is already made up. As is often the case, I'm answering more for other readers than for Mr. Dick. He begins:
"Why would the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia be flying in Florida?"
I can't speak for all of Florida, but in Pensacola, in 1949, the Chamber of Commerce developed the Fiesta of Five Flags, based on the idea of combining tourism and history. The five flags were those of the countries Pensacola had been governed by since European colonization. They chose the battle flag to represent the Confederacy.  From the Fiesta website:
Calvin Todd, President of the Pensacola Chamber of Commerce in 1949, proposed the concept of combining a historical theme with tourism promotion. Thus, the focus of Fiesta was based upon the founding of Pensacola, America's oldest city, by Don Tristan de Luna in 1559. It would also be a salute to our history under the flags of five governments that have flown over our city: Spain, France, England, the Confederacy and the United States.


Throughout the 64 years of the Fiesta’s history, the mission has remained the same: "To celebrate our heritage, promote tourism and build pride in Pensacola through festive activities which enhance the quality of life in our Community."
If Jimmy has a beef with that, perhaps he should find any surviving members of the Chamber of Commerce from that era and take it up with them. (Note: the Battleflag was replaced by the First National in city flag displays in 2000 by City Manager Tom Bonfield. At the time, the county chose not to replace the battle flag in the only Five Flags display on county property at the Pensacola Bay (civic) Center.)

As for history, one reason a battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia (in one or more of its many renditions) might fly in Florida would be to honor the 2nd Florida Infantry.  George T. Ward's 2nd Florida Infantry was sent to Virginia. Ward participated at the Yorktown Siege but lost his life to a gunshot wound at the Battle of Williamsburg. In 1862 the Ward family was presented the Confederate Battleflag.[3]

Another reason a battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia might fly in Pensacola would be to honor the Pensacola Rifle Rangers which became part of Ward's 2nd Florida Infantry, fought in the 1862 Peninsular Campaign, defending Yorktown, Virginia, the Seven Days' Battles in June 1862, the Battle of Antietam in Maryland, at Fredericksburg and Chancelorsville, and the Battle of the Wilderness.

While I don't have a problem with exchanging the battle flag for one of the Confederacy's national flags in the Five Flags displays, it is certainly historically appropriate to fly a Confederate battle flag in the city and in Escambia County.
Why does someone want to flag anything in Florida? What is the point of flagging?
Flagging is a specific form of picketing the government, a form of citizen protest in the USA, which is not only time-honored, but protected by the First Amendment (right to free speech, right to peaceably assemble).

Look up "picketing" and "protest" in the USA sometime, Mr. Jimmy "Historian" Dick, and read up on it.

The form of picketing/protest called "flagging" usually occurs to protest removal of some aspect of Confederate heritage.

Currently, in Pensacola, flagging is occurring to protest the recent vote of the Escambia County Board of Commissioners that removed the historic flags, including the Confederate flag,  from a county-owned Five Flags display at the Pensacola Bay Center (civic center).

There are other aspects to flagging that could be part of the point...

Flagging is also a way to honor our Confederate ancestors, to educate the the public about our beliefs and positions about Confederate history and heritage.

Flagging is a way to connect with other heritage folks for fellowship and fun. The Virginia Flaggers, remember, started with one woman and a flag, and has grown to a core group of dozens and an extended group of hundreds, with the support of thousands across the South and the nation.
If it is to prove one’s lack of historical knowledge, then she proved it in spades, but she does that via her blog all the time.
My blog, as the header clearly states, is to discuss much more than just history.  "Defending Dixie -- Commentary on pro-Southernism and Southern Culture, Confederate history, heritage and activism, religion, politics and whatever else I feel like witing about." As most people familiar with Backsass realize, my blog exists primarily to monitor anti-Confederate sites and blogs and to defend against their attacks, or to counter-attack.
"If she wants to educate people on the purpose of the confederacy she should have been out with shackles and chains and offered to put them on black people to demonstrate what the confederacy was about."
My primary concern is to educate people about the valor, honor and sacrifice of the Confederate soldier, but also to acquaint people with the Confederacy as a whole, and to promote and defend the traditional culture of the South. (Psssst, Mr. Jimmy "Historian" Dick -- most slaves in the South were not kept in chains and shackles. You're a historian and didn't know this?)

You make a lot of ridiculous statements, Mr. Dick -- most of them supremely worthy of being ignored. However, this last one deserves to be dealt with, and I hope to do that as time allows.

Also in a comment in the same thread, James Owen makes this extremely astute observation:
The Slavery thing is the moral straw they grab at to justify their aggression. Otherwise, their argument is lame and specious, given the North's political/cultural history up to 1860.
You are precisely right, Mr. Owen.  And in the future, I want to give that subject a blog post of its own, as well.


  1. Anyone who calls themselves a "Dick" has credibility issues. Just sayin'

    1. That's his surname. For me, that's not what his credibility issues come from.

  2. "given the North's political/cultural history up to 1860."
    PULEEEEEEASE Enlighten me !

    1. Ok, Mr. Tatum. I'll skip the cultural bit, since that's already well known.
      The French and Indian War: When George Washington was a Lt. Colonel in the British Army, the Virginians, Marylanders and some Carolina men where fighting in the Ohio Country. During the Campaign, the Virginians were facing certain defeat. A call was sent out to the Northern colonies for reinforcements. Pennsylvania was the only one to respond, with too little, too late. This experience is what gave Washington the idea of a federation or union between the colonies. He saw it as a means to concentrate manpower against external threats, and to compel the Northern colonies to contribute their fair share to colonial defense. Even at that early date, the Northerners were already working at cross purposes.

    2. Part Two. The American War of Independence. The North was conquered by the Crown and remained occupied until the end of the war. The Crown funneled trade goods into Boston, to keep New England pacified, since they had mostly dropped out of the war, once it had moved south and west. Washington's army was Southern to the core. No Northern regiments fought South of Pennsylvania. The Army experienced, on its march to and from Boston, the classic Yankee passive aggression we've all come to know and expect. There were many attempts to capture or kill Washington and his men for the bounty placed on their heads by the crown.

    3. Part Three. Pennsylvania. Troops from Pennsylvania were regarded as disloyal and unreliable. While the Army, really the first Army of Virginia, froze and starved at Valley Forge, the locals sold their surpluses of foodstuffs and firewood to the British Commissary in Philadelphia. Postwar, in the temporary Capitol at Philadelphia, Washington and his mostly Southern government were regarded with hostile suspicion by the locals.

    4. Part Four. The winning of the AWI was left up to Southerners. The War of Eighteen Twelve. During that war, which was fought for their benefit, New Englanders refused to participate in it, and contemplated secession over it. Some of them even enlisted in the British Army, and continued to trade with England. Once again, the South bore the burden of the war. As such, the battles of Pensacola and New Orleans, like the battles of the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto, rightfully belong to the annals of Southern Military History. To most Northerners, those battles are as distant and as foreign as the Battle of Waterloo.

    5. Part Five. The North opposed the Louisiana Purchase, Western expansion and consolidation of the territories won from Mexico. They also opposed the addition of the Pacific Coast states to the Union. During the Mexican American War, only a few Northern states contributed troops, and those that did serve, served for a short time. It was left up to the South, aided by the Republics of Texas and California, to bring the war to a successful conclusion.

    6. Part Six. Kansas. Northerners opposed Southern settlement of Missouri and Kansas, as well as the West in general, because it meant a loss of advantage in votes in the electoral college. The states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York raised a private army to wage war on Kansas and Missouri. The "Kansas" Jaywalkers were not Kansans, they were New England foreigners. There were at least two expeditions into the South in which white families were murdered and which the guilty parties were shielded from prosecution by the states of Ohio and Indiana. New Englanders established towns in western Virginia and other parts of the upper South for the purposes of political subversion. They were suspected of starting fires in and around Dallas, Texas, and Fort Worth. Then came John Brown, who also fought in Kansas and Missouri. We all know the rest of the story.

    7. Part Seven. To sum it up, the North has always acted in its own interests, as if it were a different Nation. There has never been a time in American History when the North wasn't hostile to the South. Furthermore, the North never cared one wit for the Union, until they found they could exploit it for power and profit. The complaints about slavery were just the exploitation of the chink in the South's political armour. Prior to that, the complaint was that Southerners had too much freedom, were too Republican, too Liberal and not cruel or exploitative enough of their slaves.

    8. Excellent recap, Mr. Owen. The more I learn about those folks, the better our Southern ancestors look by comparison.

    9. Eight. I believe that the Yankees shouldn't be scolded for what they did to the Indians. Their participation and performance in America's wars, before 1860, and since, is enough to condemn them. The North put far more effort into conquering and destroying the South, than they ever did into any of America's other wars, even today's. By way of illustration: Suppose in 1861, the Spanish had landed troops in the Gulf Coast and in Georgia and the Carolina's. Suppose they then proceeded to march on Virginia and Washington. How many of the thousands of Northern men who enlisted for the invasion of Dixie, would have enlisted to repel the invaders? How long would it have been before their respective state governments would have attempted to make a separate peace with Spain, sacrificing the South, in order to save the North? Not many in the first instance. Not long in the latter.

    10. The savage [i.e., Yankee] is full of prejudices, because he is full of ignorance. His intellectual horizon is necessarily limited; he sees but little, and judges only by what he sees. His own little world is the World, and he tries all the rest of mankind by that standard. –

      Admiral Raphael Semmes

    11. Exceptional post. Well said --- thank you.


  3. Perhaps Mr. Dick is unaware of the northern congress and Abe Lincoln's attempts to keep blacks in "shackles and chains" --

    March 2, 1861
    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

    36th Congress 2nd Session

    March 4, 1861
    I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

    Abraham Lincoln - 1st inaugural speech

    1. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the act. On December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia as a state loyal to the Union without abolishing slavery.

    2. Of course he's aware. It just doesn't matter because "Lincoln didn't really mean it" or "He "evolved" over time and had a change heart. Or Lincoln's actions are taken out of context. You know, the usual Neo Yankee excuses and obfuscation when confronted with Plain, uncomplicated facts.

    3. If you hadn't seen it before, here is a site you might find interesting;

    4. Thanks James I have added the link to my favorites.


  4. Not to overlook the 5th,8th and 11th Florida regiments which were in the ANV

    1. Eddie
      They know that, if they don't then they are piss poor historians. When I first engaged in a dialogue with these folks I thought they really were interested in history but boy was I wrong. They have an agenda that plays to their desire to be superior to Southorns like us. Instead of honoring their Union ancestors they would much prefer attacking the folks who honor their Confederate ancestors, such is the mind of these liberals God bless their hearts.
      By the way very good comment.

    2. Mr. Sanford, you have nailed it, bigtime. They -- or some of them -- don't give a fig about their union ancestors. They are left-liberals with a modern day agenda, and the civil war is just another weapon in pushing that agenda. They mayy try to hide their agenda behind history, but they don't do a good job of it.

      Then there's Jarret Ruminski, who isn't precisely a Civil War blogger, but is a "history" blogger and a self-professed liberal. He isn't nearly as close-mouthed about his agenda as some floggers, nor does he hide his animosity for Southerners, past or present. I think he lives in Canada now, but I believe he's from Ohio. Yeah. Sherman-land.

      This is a guy who bloviates about the commercialism of Christmas in the USA while jihadists are cutting off the heads of Christians (including school kids and toddlers) on the other side of the world.

      But you are absolutely right about them, Jessie. They are fake "anti-racists," going through the Internet with a fine-toothed comb and blaring about the "racism" they find. Because being a racist is a no-no these days, especially among left-liberal circlies, fake anti-racists feel guilty about their secret racism. So....they call other people racist. That way, they can avoid associating with other races and still be considered a good anti-racist multiculturalist or whatever. Just name-call somebody else and their fake position as an "anti-racist" is secured. Talk the talk and they won't have to walk the walk.

      Civil war "history" is a weapon for them to blast at "racists" so their self-professed position as "anti-racists" will look more real.

  5. Southerners, in reality, do not fear Yankee ridicule. What we fear most is our own reaction to the aggression and ignorance of the Yankee. Failing to understand the habit of courtesy, Northerners have no idea how angry a Southerner may be or how much strength of will is required to remain civil when he wants to smack the smugness off a Northern face. –Joyce Bennett

    1. Mr Owen
      That perrty much sums up my feelings.

  6. Mr. Simpson says
    "Well, I guess that Mr. Sanford now has to admit that the Pensacola Flagger, Eddie Inman, and he are inferior historians (I decline to use his ugly language). Not only are these folks not interested in history, but they are also incompetent … and they fail to recognize and honor the service of all of Florida’s soldiers who served with the Army of Northern Virginia, bless their hearts."
    No Mr. Simpson I don't. I have never claimed to be historian. You sir engage in nitpicking, half-truths and bulling which seems to me should be beneath a man of your education and standing as a university professor. I have asked you in the past why you hate flaggers, SCV and other folks who just want to honor their kinfolk and you will not answer the question. But that is your right it just leaves the rest of to guess what your reasons are.

    1. Simpson can only get by attacking the messenger and not the message. Why is it he never leaves the safety of his blog and engage in an open debate -----he has no facts to back him up. His kind is what makes "historian" a dirty word.

  7. Ms. Connie, Here's a link you might find interesting;

    Here's something interesting from the Arkansas Toothpick site;

    One hundred and fifty years ago, Arkansawyers were learning of a new flag being flown in the eastern theater of the War. In 1861, several states used their own state flag in battle to represent their respective regiments; Virginia was perhaps the most noted. Arkansas did not have a state flag until the twentieth century.

    Through the opening year of the War Between the States, the flag that had been most familiar to Arkansas was the Confederate First National flag. Most Arkansas regiments employed this flag as their official regimental colors, as noted in a multitude of flag presentation reports found in 1861 Arkansas newspapers. There was one major problem with the Confederacy’s flag- it too closely resembled the flag of the opposing side; it consisted of a blue field of white stars and alternating red and white stripes.

    This week one hundred and fifty years ago, a solution was found among the Confederates in the Eastern theater- they created a new flag. This new flag is without a doubt the most recognizable flag of the American Civil War and the most associated with the Southern armies. Following is an account found in an Arkansas newspaper: “We see in several exchanges allusions to the war flag of the Southern Confederacy, which is now waving over the camps on the Potomac, but no description of it. The reason for its use is that the “stars and bars” so nearly resemble the “stars and stripes,” that it is difficult to distinguish them. We gather from an incidental allusion to it in the correspondence of the Richmond Dispatch that the emblem is the Southern cross. We suppose it is a number of white stars arranged in the form of a cross, on a solid ground.”

    An evolution of the Confederate flag thus begins.


Comments are welcome, but monitored.