How the Confederate Battle Flag Became Racist

The Confederate Battle Flag

St. Andrew's Cross Flag

       I've already written a blog on the Confederate Battle Flag being based on the Christian flag of St. Andrew, one of Jesus's Apostles and the younger brother of Peter. I won't repeat what I've already stated as you can go back and read those blogs if you're interested. I'm going in a different direction with this blog. Legend has it that Andrew was crucified on an "X" shaped cross different from the type that Christ was placed upon. The St. Andrew's Cross flag was derived from this legend. The flag has Christian origins. So the question arises, "How did a Christian flag come to be viewed as racist?"

       I've already told the story of the flag used by the KKK in the early 1900's. Below is a photograph of the 1928 Klan march on our nation's capital. You won't notice any Confederate Battle Flags in the photograph, but the U.S. National Flag. I've already asked why we don't consider that flag racist, but have yet to receive an answer from people that worship that flag while calling for the abandonment of the Confederate Battle Flag. 

1928 Klan march on Washington, D.C.

       I recently listened to a talk given by a friend of mine who happened to serve on the grand jury hearings for the case of the 16th Street Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama on September 15, 1963 in which four young black girls were killed. I won't mention my friends name here because I have not received prior permission from him. I will explain what he learned from being on the grand jury. 

       First off, he learned why the Klan began to use the Confederate Battle Flag as its official symbol and turns out, it's the same reason other people use the flag. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy being a slave holding nation at all. When the protests began in earnest across the South to stop segregation, the Klan at that time was a peaceful organization or at least most of it's members attempted to be peaceful. Some of the younger members decided it was time for more radical action and appealed to the older Klan members for violence. The older members naturally didn't agree with this approach. The younger members fed up with what they considered the inaction of the older members did what they thought was right. They naturally raised the Confederate Battle Flag in defiance (that flag is the international symbol of defiance of course) in protest of the old leadership. Why else would the Confederate Battle Flag be displayed in Crimea during it's secession from Ukraine? There are almost no blacks there, so obviously, they aren't attempting to downgrade that race. It's become the international symbol of defiance to an overreaching authority. 

        Another thing that I learned from my friend on the grand jury trial that I'd never heard before was the fact that no one was supposed to be killed in the bombing at the church. The bomb was placed the night before and supposed to explode during the night. These Klan members didn't know how to correctly build a timer on their bomb. By the next morning when the bomb was supposed to have already exploded, none of these guys had the courage to walk up and see why it hadn't gone off yet. Unfortunately, for all involved, the bomb went off at the worst possible moment. 

A Russian lady protesting with a non-Russian flag

       Now let's move on to the ignorance our nation teaches. Because most of our nations lawmakers are unfortunately lawyers and they just want to "kiss ass" for a vote, none of them have the backbone to stand up for what is right. They jump on the bandwagon of "political correctness" and sing along. So, here are a few observations that should shake the politically correct to the core. 

       In an attempt to do away with the Confederate Battle Flag on Georgia's state flag, the politically correct raised enough protest to have the flag changed. The flag was changed from a battle flag that never flew over a slave holding nation to one that looks almost identical to the Confederate First National flag and a nation that did hold slaves. 

The Confederate 1st National Flag or "Stars and Bars"

The modern day Georgia state flag is not considered racist, but can you see any resemblence?

        Even funnier for me is the fact that none of the people that protest these things are smart enough to figure any of it out for themselves. Let's take a look at the march President Obama led across the Edmund Winston Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 2015. Below you can see a photograph of him on the bridge, but behind him is the obvious name of the bridge. 

Obama and others on Edmund Winston Pettus Bridge in Selma

      Why do I think the above photograph is comical? For starters, the bridge is named after Brigadier General Edmund Winston Pettus, a Confederate Brigadier General, and later a member of the original Ku Klux Klan. Now it's not funny that he is standing in front of a name associated with the Klan, because anyone one that care's to learn the true history of our nation will readily admit that the original Klan was meant to drive out the carpet bagger's from up North. They were not a racist group at all. The funny thing to me is the fact that no one in America realized who the bridge was named after until days after the photograph was taken. No one on Obama's staff even knew who General Pettus was. General Pettus was a great man, not a racist person at all. He loved the South and fought hard against the Central Government of Lincoln. He joined the Klan because he lived in a land where Southern white males had no representation in the government. He is buried beneath a flat marker (nothing fancy at all) because he was an extremely humble person. Now we learn that the politically correct want to rename the bridge after having been told who the bridge was named after. This I find extremely funny. 

        Reminds me of a quote attributed to one of the South's arch enemies, Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Maybe he should of been alive today to see how "dumbed down" we've become. 

        So what is the best way to take this flag back from the Klan and the skinheads? There is a simple solution. The black race needs to stop protesting this flag and embrace it. After all, as Frederick Douglass once stated, the black race is the stomach of the rebellion. Whether or not you believe blacks fought for the South, you must admit the South couldn't have survived without the help of the black race just as Frederick Douglass understood. Why then should the black race hate that flag? 

Problems with James Loewen's Confederate Reader

Another New England author attempts to prove it was good versus evil

       I recently ordered a book online not having a clue what the book was about. I have only read ninety pages, but the author lets you know what he is attempting in the introduction. The Civil War was about slavery and  slavery only. The "most holy north" invaded the "evil" south because everyone in the south are racists, etc. I quickly searched the back cover to find out what I could about the author. James W. Loewen is a retired professor from the University of Vermont. How could I have ever imagined he was another of those New England elitists. 

       Loewen does more to prove the south correct than he actually intends to. He tells us that the south seceded because the north was not obeying the constitution. According to him, the northern states had a moral right to not obey the fugitive slave law. Although, slavery was legal at the time (don't take what I'm saying as I support slavery, just bear with me), and the fugitive slave law was indeed law, Mr. Loewen insists the north was correct in disobeying the law. When the south seceded because of breach of contract (the northern states not obeying the laws of the constitution) according to Mr. Loewen, the south was wrong. Now you'd have to be a Yankee to think that way in the first place. Any good lawyer will tell you that if one party breaks a contract, the contract is worthless. 

       I then decided to learn what I could about Mr. Loewen's history classes, but wait, I was in for another surprise. Loewen was not a history professor (imagine that if you will). He was a professor of sociology. Now everything he writes begins to reveal itself. Mr. Loewen has attempted to write about a subject he is 150 years removed from, by making the same mistake as many other modern day historians. He is attempting to look at that time period through today's eyes. He has forgotten that to study a time period, one must place himself in that time period and view it through the eyes of those who lived at the time. 

       Was America the only part of the world to own slaves in 1860? Let's take a look. Various parts of Africa owned slaves up until 1900. Ethiopia had over 8 million people in slavery in 1930. China didn't outlaw slavery until 1910. Others include Korea, Thailand, Burma, and Japan. Saudi Arabia had over 300,000 slaves in 1960, that is correct, 1960. Where were all these New England elitists while all that was going on? That's a good question. 

       Could it be that there was no money to be made or power to be gained from freeing the Saudi slaves? As John C. Calhoun stated in a speech in Mr. Loewen's book, the New England states want the slaves freed, given the right to vote, to swing power into New England's favor because of course the freed slaves will vote for the people that gave them their freedom. New England had been losing power in this country ever since we began to expand. During the Mexican War, it was the New England states that threatened to secede because more territory meant less power for their section. 

       Mr. Loewen even attempts to persuade us that General Robert E. Lee was a racist. I agree with  Mr. Loewen on this point one hundred percent. As a matter of fact, 99.9% of all people during that time period were racists. All you have to do is listen to Abraham Lincoln's speeches to see what a racist he was, but Mr. Loewen chooses to ignore these. I'm not a racist, but I do have some serious questions I'd like answered. During the 1860's, Americans thought they were better than Africans, Irish, Polish, Germans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Italians. The Irish were looked down upon as the scum of the earth in 1860 (my red hair gives me away here). Yet, today, it is perfectly fine to insult any of these except those of African descent. Why? The answer lies in John Calhoun's speech. The politicians are still counting on all those votes from those of African descent to remain in power. 

       Mr. Loewen believes he has solved the argument of what the war was over, yet he refuses to believe that northern greed had anything to do with it. That would mean that his part of the nation could be just as guilty as the south. Nor does he mention the ships owned by the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Chicago that made millions of dollars bringing African slaves to America to sell to the southern states. Do yourself a favor and skip this book. By using various documents of his choosing and ignoring others, he attempts to sell you on the fact that the war was about slavery and slavery only. Maybe he should just stick to sociology and leave the history to historians. 

Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest: A book review

Myth of Forrest by Ashdown and Caudill

       I just finished the book The Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest by Paul Ashdown and Edward Caudill. I've read so many books on that war that I didn't recognize the authors names. The writing was very familiar to me. It reminded me of another book I'd read on a famous personality of the Civil War. After reading over half the book, it finally dawned on me who these two authors were. 

       Both Ashdown and Caudill are professors of journalism at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. They wrote the book The Mosby Myth reflecting on the life of John Singleton Mosby. Like the Mosby book, I was a bit disappointed about their writing. Both books speculate on what may or may not be correct in the present stories pertaining to Forrest and Mosby's lives. 

The Wizard of the Saddle

       Somethings they say make sense, but other things seemed to frustrate me. When they didn't have the facts to back up their claims, they simply cast doubt on the story. The biggest thing that frustrates me with the book is the fact that they continued to return to the same fact over and over. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a racist. Again, you have two people writing history from today's perspective. To be a fair historian, one cannot compare past values with present values. If the writers wanted to be fair to Forrest, they would have talked more about the belief system of all white people during that time period, not just Forrest's. Instead, they spend chapter after chapter attempting to compare Forrest to Greek myths. At one point, they even wonder if Forrest was a military genius. Maybe, both men should leave the historical writing to the historians and just concentrate on their specialty which happens to be journalism. 

       Let's compare the racist Forrest to other famous people of that war. Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, and David Porter all three ranted against the Jews. On December 17, 1862, Grant passed an order preventing Jews from passing into his lines. Sherman actually said that Africans (I will not use his word for the black race here), Mexicans, Indians, and Jews were all inferior to the white race. In 1859, Sherman wrote his wife, "the n____ here must of necessity remain slaves...damn the n____."

       Let's not stop with three of the most famous commanders on the Northern side of that war, let's see what the President of the United States had to say. The following are the words of Abraham Lincoln, also known as the 'Great Emancipator'. 

       Lincoln in 1858: "I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white races."

       Lincoln in 1859: "Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogism as this."

       Lincoln to a black audience in 1862: "I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence."

       There is more and more that can be added by Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Sherman, and others as they rant about the superiority of the white race. What do you think would happen today if Romney was to say any of the above quotes? A good historian doesn't take today's values and apply them to times long ago.