The Modern Civil War: This Isn’t the Flag You’re Looking For
/I am sure many readers have heard about the South Carolina Church shooting. The perpetrating individual shot nine African American church members, after attending a group bible study with his victims. This has been presented (in his own words even) as an exceptionally unstable, young, fascist, white supremacist.
{PHOTOGRAPH} AP Photo/Stephen B. Morton
Which obviously he is, thus far it has been proven that this young 21 year old man has a personal vendetta with minorities. More specifically, the African American communities of the United States. Jews, Hispanics and Asians are just a few of his most tolerated things; keeping in mind he believed they should be dehumanized to the fantasy like standards of what he believed was “acceptable”.
Recently the argument of removal of the Confederate Flag from use in South Carolina (in addition to other states such as Virginia, etc.) has been stirred. This modern icon of hatred and bigoted history should be shunned and thrown into a museum, according to the societal/cultural consensus and the age of technology.
Interestingly I have read several severely misconstrued interpretations as to where this flag came from and why. Keep in mind, this flag has blood ingrained into its seams. It has been declared the symbolism of the defeated South, those anti-abolitionists. Anti-establishment through and through.
{PHOTOGRAPH} This Confederate flag, which was captured at the Battle of Mine Creek, Kans., Oct. 24, 1864, sold at auction June 25, 2011, for $26,290. Heritage Auction Galleries (Dallas) sold the 35-by-50-inch wool flag accompanied by documentation and historical analysis. Photo courtesy Heritage Auction Galleries/ANTIQUE TRADER
It’s highly offensive to many because of its historical precedence. Many generations are educated to believe that ONLY the South had slaves and fought against the Union to preserve the horrific practice of slavery. This flag represents death, slavery and moral evils that only a Civil War could remedy.
Just as the Confederate flag has been painted as villainous, the American flag has been soaked in the blood of innumerable generations. There is always an ultimate reason for war; the wars of the greatest generation down to their parents/grandparent’s wars were considered admirable. We won, right?
When the Vietnam era came into fruition this flag saw the sense of anger and blood shed that didn’t even see the casualty numbers of the Great War’s (World War I: 320,710, not including MIA---Vietnam: 211,147). Arguably, the U.S. involvement in WWI only lasted two years, whereas with Vietnam it was from 1964 until 1975. The Vietnam War was a new form of war.
{illustrative} World War 1, PROPAGANDA Poster by James Montgomery Flagg, 1917.
With the WWI, the process of soldier selection was on a volunteer basis. Men well into their 40s joined, which I found interesting. With Vietnam, a draft was instituted to gain the numbers necessary for the war. A war which would be seen as both a grave miscalculation by the U.S. and a travesty against the soldiers placed in harm’s way.
WWII causalities surpassed both WWI and Vietnam in causalities at 1,078,162. However, this war lasted from 1939 to 1945. The United States only became formally involved in WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. This led to a huge wave of Nationalism across the United States, thus drafting was unnecessary.
I believe with the loss of time, memory is often muddled. The glory of the “greatest generation” swept the country, thus when it was deemed necessary for the sons (and daughters) to defend the world against communism…we gladly accepted. Until it became clear this war would not be won, this wasn’t their parent’s war nor would it be a successful endeavor no matter how it is projected into a history book.
There was an already established campaign in Vietnam with the Soviet forces leading the way, China in tow.
“Fifty percent of all Soviet foreign aid went to North Vietnam between 1965 and 1968. Soviet anti-aircraft teams in North Vietnam brought down dozens of U.S. planes. According to former Soviet colonel Alexei Vinogradov, ‘The Americans knew only too well that Vietnamese planes of Soviet design were often flown by Soviet pilots.’”[1]
In addition, China was also heavily involved in North Vietnam.
“According to Beijing, between 1965 and 1973, there were 320,000 Chinese troops assigned to North Vietnam, with a maximum of 170,000 – roughly a third of the maximum number of U.S. forces – in the south at their peak.”[2]
This was a much weightier support system than the United States had full appreciated. But
{Photograph} The sun breaks through dense jungle foliage as South Vietnamese troops, joined by U.S. advisers, rest after a cold, damp and tense night of waiting in an ambush position for a Viet Cong attack that didn’t come, January 1965. (Horst Faas/AP).
Many young adults began to fight the system, angrily lashing out at a corrupted system. However, the outrage of being unheard by their government permitted a country to rebel on a much different level than it had ever done before.
The 60s were a time of great instability in the U.S. National consciousness. Our U.S. flag felt tainted and exploited by our own government who sent young, inexperienced men to die for the cause of stopping communism. Was this true? Doubtful that was EVER a reason. (See modern U.S. and China relations, modern U.S. and Russian Cold War)
When we focus on flags, we are basing it on a general consensus of opinion. Not necessarily on transparent history. A deepened sense of nationalism can be blinding and at best, politically manipulated.
Was Pearl Harbor an utterly surprise attack? NO.
Was 9/11 an utterly surprise attack? NO.
{illustrative} The cover of the 9/11 commission report
The bottom line is the sense of manipulation that cultivates itself within a fervid emotion of nationalism. People will kill, torture and justify all in the same breath. Thus history can portray it as necessary or even villainize those who question it.
What is the deal with the Civil War then?
So this argument is fundamentally layered in debatable content, none of which is worthy of this posting to begin with. But I feel it’s necessary to some extent. When you have one 21 year old piece of shit who deems himself the Messiah that can tear down a flag that so many men died under. It’s necessary in that meaning.
I'd like to make it clear, I'm not a Southern sympathizer. Both sides of my family tree fought for the Union and the Confederate (I would be interested to overhear those heavenly conversations).
Keep in mind that these same generations had previously fought in the Revolutionary war. Later these same surviving generations, fought in WWI, WWII, Korea and in some rare instances Vietnam. These men (and eventually fighting women) fought for our country. They had the right to fight to preserve it. Whether or not I agree with a war, I honor them for their service and courage to take on such a weight. Many were young men and women, doing what they believed was expected of them. Not necessarily always ethical nor moral. But it was expected of them under the duress of a sense of inescapable nationalism.
The Civil War casualties were staggering, this being the first step of introduction. “Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty.”[3]
The reason for the Civil War (North vs South) was actually regarding “state sovereignty and the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment (ratified in 1791)”.
A summary of the Tenth Amendment, for reference, is as follows:
“The Tenth Amendment helps to define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. As Federal activity has increased, so too has the problem of reconciling state and national interests as they apply to the Federal powers to tax, to police, and to regulations such as wage and hour laws, disclosure of personal information in recordkeeping systems, and laws related to strip-mining.”[4]
{Photograph} President abraham Lincoln visiting Antietam.
The South desired less federal government involvement in their state affairs.
“The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter.”[5]
Now keep in mind, former President Abraham Lincoln had never had the intention of freeing slaves. We were well into the Civil War before it was even considered it (1862). After all, the North also had their slaves and forced indentured servants to consider.[6] But the overall argument of the Northern slave owners was of their humanitarian approach to how their slaves were treated versus that of the Southern states.
So basically their stance: Yes of course we are slave owners; he treat our slaves like bound family members. We eat dinner together after they were in the fields all day by our command! Therefore we are better people.
It’s still slavery; Human beings should be treated as human beings. In the end, slavery’s blood laid upon the hands of all slave holding white men. NO matter what part of the country they lived; North or South. NO matter their justifications; we are good people!
“It was not Abraham Lincoln who first pressed the US Congress to pass an amendment to the US Constitution outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude. It was abolitionists like the former slave Frederick Douglass and white feminists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who fought both for freedom for blacks and, as leaders of the women’s suffrage movement, fought for the right to vote for white women.
{photograph} Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ca. 1870s Copyprint. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress (112)
While Lincoln dithered and prevaricated, Stanton and Anthony sent women onto the streets of America to gather names for a petition to present to the Congress that would show that Americans wanted an amendment included in the Constitution ending slavery.
The petition read: ‘TO THE WOMEN OF THE REPUBLIC: We ask you to sign and circulate this petition for the ENTIRE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY… Go to the rich, the poor, the high, the low, the soldier, the civilian, the white, the black, gather up the names of all who hate slavery, all who love LIBERTY, and would have it the LAW of the land and lay them at the feet of Congress.’
Presented to Congress before the 13th amendment legislation was voted on, the petition played an important part in the law’s passing.”[7]
The critical piece to this puzzle is in Lincoln’s final issuance of the “Emancipation Proclamation”, which took effect on January 1, 1863.
Lincoln knew very well the South depended on the economic benefits of slavery, without slaves to their use, the confederacy would surely meet its demise.
In our school time textbooks the advantages of abolishing slavery would be summarized in this political correct order:
“First, there was the moral advantage. A proclamation would galvanize support for the war among Northern abolitionists.
The second advantage was economic. The South’s economy was based on slavery. If enslaved people were freed and left their masters, it would deliver a severe blow to the South’s economy and ability to wage war.
{photograph} African American solider and family, circa 1863-65
Third, the freed slaves could be recruited into the Union army, to address the army’s need for more soldiers.”[8]
This move by Lincoln was a political one and a strategic maneuver. As much as we adore Lincoln historically and the good he did by issuing this proclamation, the final call was purely to end the Civil War’s reign.
Now speeding up to 2015, we have an outcry to remove the Confederate flag from state capitals across the Southern states. This symbolism of racial hate and injustice. I understand their exceptional pain at viewing the flag as a symbol of malicious and villainous hate. Never mind the idiocy of white supremacy groups and uneducated fucks who believe this flag represents Nazi-like traits of fascism.
I wanted to personally thank these groups for stomping on the blood and souls of our own country’s men, women and children who died during the South’s darkest days. Your ignorance is not unexpected, it is just pathetic. For exploiting the blood of those lost in the greatest loss of human life on American soil, I hope you answer for it at some point in your emptied lives.
All of it disgusts me, beyond words. This flag WAS NOT created by the Klu Klux Klan. The Confederate flag was used as a navy jack at sea from 1863 onward during the Civil War.
To be more specific:
“This flag was first used in battle in December 1861. Being a new flag, different from the United States flag, it gained widespread acceptance and allegiance among the Confederate soldiers, and population in general. The flag is referred to as the Confederate battle flag, and as the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.”[9]
{illustrative} Southern Lithograph Co., New York - the United States Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division, digital ID cph.3a19879.
There is an array of disinformation running rampant across social media and main stream as to the history of this historic flag. This being said, I wanted to point out the history for the reader.
A sense of nationalism has been the reasoning for most of our wars. The young men of the Civil war left many without heirs, fathers, sons and husbands. The blood of these fallen soldiers is still entrenched within the society, cultures and heritages of many Americans to this day.
I can honestly say I do support removing the Confederate flags from the capitals. I believe that the time has come to remove this flag from the statehouses; Now that society is moving onward into a new chapter, we need to "reset" the societal consciousness.
Yet I am quite aware of how painful this could be for Southerners. Not because these individuals are racists, but because they see this as their personal and state history. Just as I feel it is my history, my family’s history and of the nation’s history. The fight for state’s rights began with the Civil War at a horrific price. But apart from the deadly losses of the war, the first legislation to eliminate a horrific sin against African Americans began within it's wrath.
Despite the time that has passed, removal of the flag will not remove racism from the country. You cannot erase history and you would be a fool to have such an expectation. Removing this flag will not deter it’s usage but it will make a statement among the states that the symbol of perceived hate has been eliminated and it will not be endorsed. This does not eliminate prejudice, hate or violence.
It will not stop shootings of unarmed minorities, senseless murders and/or monopolized caste systems within the United States.
It will not stop white supremacists from manipulating it to their advantage. This will change very little in the end.
To the 21 year old Charleston shooter, you have exploited, murdered and stomped upon the innocent. Innocent, unarmed church goers. In a childish and misconceived attempt to be a man of ill-conceived honor, you have proven nothing.
However what this shooting has done, is that it has proven that our country has misguided attempts at eliminating symbols of perceived hate rather than addressing the legitimate sources of hate -legislatively or directly.
On an additional notation of consideration, the withdrawal of the Confederate flag from retailers (such as Amazon, Ebay, Walmart, etc) will do nothing. This has escalated from a position of common sense legislation to a position of corruptible stupidity. The flag has been labeled a symbol of hate, there are Federal laws that then eliminate it from purchase.
As this situation continues, Civil War monuments have been defaced in addition to demonstrators (AKA Protesters) calling for the removal of Thomas Jefferson's memorial. Really? Because if we remove a memorial it will eradicate or change the brutal history of the United States?
How about we focus on cultivating our own historical precedence? Learn from the horrors, understand the history that accompanies it and blaze some new trails. Teach those who dwell in the darkness that we are bigger than their concepts of what education and influence is. Nope, we are going to go online and bitch about how unfair our country's history is. Go ahead! Share disinformation across social media. In turn we will blame each other's race, gender, ethnicity and culture. Comment debates thereafter will spring into life. Demand that someone else fixes it and makes the world better on our behalf. That's easier, right?
Meanwhile, the shootings of unarmed African Americans will continue. The passive aggressive prejudices will run rampant. The outcry from the communities will also continue. Then with a sparkle in their eye, the politicians will focus on the easy venues of societal resolution. Like a flag. It's so much easier to divide and conquer people when they hate each other.
Sometimes I really hate politics.
[1] Lind, Michael. "Why We Went to War in Vietnam." The American Legion. 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.legion.org/magazine/213233/why-we-went-war-vietnam.
[2] Lind, Michael. "Why We Went to War in Vietnam." The American Legion. 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.legion.org/magazine/213233/why-we-went-war-vietnam.
[3] "Civil War Casualties The Cost of War: Killed, Wounded, Captured, and Missing." Civil War Trust. 2014. Accessed June 22, 2015. http://www.civilwar.org/education/civil-war-casualties.html.
[4] "Tenth Amendment." Cornell University Law School. 2015. Accessed June 24, 2015. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment.
[5] Schweitzer, Jeff. "Slavery and the Civil War: Not What You Think." The Huffington Post. April 4, 2011. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html.
[6] Harper, Douglas. "Slavery Denial." Slavery in the North. 2003. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://slavenorth.com/denial.htm.
[7] Goffe, Leslie. "Diaspora: Lincoln Did Not Free the Slaves." New African Magazine. March 19, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://newafricanmagazine.com/diaspora-lincoln-did-not-free-the-slaves/.
[8] Applestein Esq., Donald. "Did Lincoln Free the Slaves?" Constitution Daily. The National Constitution Center. September 22, 2011. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/did-lincoln-free-the-slaves/.
[9] "Confederate Flag." Son of the South. 2003-2014. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Confederate_Flag.htm.