Thoughts on the Confederate Flag
Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.
The Flag
Being born and raised in North Carolina, I have had the privilege of meeting and becoming friends with people on both sides of the great dividing line between North and South. One issue about which they cannot agree, or see each other’s side, is the ongoing debate about the Confederate Flag. I believe this contention could be due to misunderstanding or neglect of history. My friends from the North cannot understand the concept of “heritage” as it relates to the flag. And similarly, many of my friends from the South cannot understand why the flag is looked at with such contempt. I will herein try to explain what I feel to be the two main misunderstandings inherent in each side.
Bear in mind that I would not pretend to call myself an “expert” by any means, when it comes to the complete history of Civil War. I have only my research accumulated during a study of General William T. Sherman and a separate (ongoing) study of the “Secession Ordinances”.
I cannot even begin to elaborate on the generalizations and assumptions made by those hailing from both areas, but I feel that the history of the flag needs to be elaborated upon before we continue. I will here give two examples of the misunderstandings manifest in my friends from the North and South.
Misunderstandings: To my Northern friends.
1) The first “Confederate Flag” was the “Stars and Bars” which resembled the US Flag at the time. It had three horizontal bars (two red, one white), and a blue square in the corner containing 7 stars (one for each of the originally seceded states). The “Battle Flag” as it came to be known, was designed mainly because it bore little resemblance to the US Flag at the time. This was needed because in many cases, (such as in the First Battle of Bull Run) the troops fighting mid-field could not distinguish which side was their own- especially with no wind. In effect, the flag was designed for the men, not the leaders. This is how it got the name “The Confederate Battle Flag”.
2) The vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn’t own Slaves. The numbers vary (and I emphasize "vary"), but it usually lands around 5%. It is extremely important to remember that most of the men fighting in these battles (based on journal entries) had little to no idea about the politics of the conflict. They knew only that they were defending their state. They were told by their leaders that the North was “invading”, and told to “defend their homeland”, these men were under the impression that they were defending their home from a hostile power. On these grounds, can we condemn the soldier for the leader’s wickedness?
Misunderstandings: To my Southern friends.
1) Try as they might to deny it, Slavery was the reason for secession. If one subjects one’s self to an honest study of the causes of the war, they will inevitably arrive at the conclusion that Slavery in the new states (Kansas and New Mexico to name a few) was to be decided by the incoming President. The correspondence of the day, and the claims and threats made by the leaders confirm this. The view was: If the new President was a Republican, Slavery was to be abolished. If the new President was a Democrat, Slavery would be preserved.
The most common claim I hear is that secession was in response to the “Morrill Tariff” and other Tax related reasons. Ignoring the fact that the “Morrill Tariff” had nothing to do with Lincoln (who openly opposed new Tariffs), and was signed into law by James Buchanan before Lincoln took office; Why would those leaders not say it was because of tax reasons? They were given the best opportunity one can imagine to state their grievances. This was when they wrote the “Secession Ordinances” and the accompanying “Declaration of secession”. These documents were essentially the Southern state’s “Declaration of Independence”. South Carolina’s Ordinance and Declaration served as a template because it was written first, and because South Carolina had been the most vocal in its opposition to a Republican President. One would assume that the word “Tax” or “Taxes” would be found in large numbers in such a document. But is it?
The word “Tax” appears once in the following.
“The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.”
The word “slave/slaveholding” appears in the Declaration of Secession 18 times. Including:
“an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.”
“all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
The Declaration makes a point to use the words “Slave holding” and “non-Slaveholding” as the defining term. The leaders of the time were given the opportunity to say why they seceded, and they did.
One could look to the Declaration of Secession written by Texas, which is exceedingly blunt in its claim.
“Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”
In the first paragraph of Georgia’s Declaration you find the following:
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.”
And in the second paragraph:
“The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”
The Declaration if Mississippi leaves little to the imagination by beginning with:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
I fail to understand how anyone, having read these documents, could claim that secession was not over this issue. I apologize for spending so much time on the reasons for secession, but I felt the need to elaborate.
I should say again, that the soldiers of that Great War (for the most part) had no idea that it had much at all to do with Slavery. Most were doing what they felt to be their patriotic duty. They defended their State.
2) The Flag has been taken, and for lack of better phrasing, ruined for those wanting to fly the flag for morally sound reasons. Racist parties have forever tied themselves to the flag by using it as their banner. The Southern people I know, and those who would side against any attack on the flag, often forget this simple truth. Many terrible acts have been committed under the drapery of that flag. It does incite anger and contempt for that reason.
The most racist and bigoted crowds the white race can produce always appeal to this flag as their symbol. The exceedingly racist groups of any other ethnicity use symbols which are not as recognizable as the Confederate Flag. One may say that this is not fair to those who proudly display this flag for non-racial reasons. And, you would be right. But you cannot simply act as though the Confederate Flag has not been a symbol used by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo Nazis. Similarly, one cannot deny that it was used by individuals such as Dylann Roof and others. Accepting this would go a long way. Although, the side against this flag; those who see only a flag of racism, are equally guilty of neglecting inquiry and learning.
Heritage
I have already explained that this flag was designed for the soldiers, many of whom were black. It is true that some people in the south, when asked why they fly the flag, would pelt you with a volley of racial slurs and hateful language. But I would claim that this group is in the minority on this issue. There are those who would gladly explain- “Well, my great great grandfather was in the Army of Northern Virginia. I still have his uniform and journal. Let me show you!” This response would be extremely common if one were to take the time to ask. To not allow those flying this flag the benefit of the doubt, is to continue practicing the very thing for which you are condemning them.
It is best to understand that many of these people have ancestors who fought, and in many cases, died under this flag. They have the right to be proud of their heritage. They have been told by the rest of the country that they should basically be ashamed of their ancestors for something they (most likely) had no hand in- The institution of Slavery.
One can easily recall the suggestive, insinuating, and condescending tone with which someone from the northern states utters the phrase- “The South”. Who has not heard this? By northern standards, the people of the South seemingly have nothing to be proud of. What has the rest of the country left them? High School Football? Everyone wants to be proud of their heritage. That flag represents a grandfather or grandmother who answered the call of his or her Country. They resisted those whom they were told was their enemy. And they did so valiantly.
As I type this part of my essay, I can’t help but remember a quote I came across while doing some of my research on General Sherman. In which, one of Sherman’s men wrote that: [the Confederate Soldiers] “fought our advance with an abandon and desperation worthy of a better cause.” Even though the cause at the administrative level was morally bankrupt, these men believed they fought for their Country. And in absolute fact, they did. Many of those who fly the Confederate Flag, do so in a way of remembrance. They don’t want their ancestors forgotten… Confined to a bag with the rest of southern history, bearing a large red stamp showing the word “RACIST” in bold letters. All I ask of those who take a universally condemning view of the people who display the flag, is to consider that some people fly it in honor and memory of the soldiers… Not the cause.
So, I hope that I have not lost your attention in the course of this essay. And I sincerely hope that I lost no friends in the course of posting it. Please share your thoughts…
Thank you,
Isaiah
