Last Friday, the Mississippi Senate passed a bill that would add the motto “In God We Trust” to the state seal. They were following the direction of?Gov. Phil Bryant, who introduced the idea by calling on Mississippians ?to stand for our beliefs.”
Now that the Governor and Legislature are on a mission to change state insignia, let?s have a conversation about the symbol that is most offensive to our beliefs as a society, religious and otherwise: the flag.
The history of the state flag is well-known by some, selectively misremembered by others. The current flag dates to 1894, after Mississippi’s 1890 constitution had effectively purged black freedmen and carpetbagger Republicans from elected office.
The old Confederate Democrats, back in control of the Legislature, sought to ?redeem? the virtue of the antebellum South by adopting a new flag with the battle emblem of its ideal exponent, Robert E. Lee. (The official flag of the Confederacy, the ?stars and bars,? has been largely consigned to history?s storage closet.)
It is the myth of General Lee — the noble patrician, the ingenious strategist, the learned and benevolent slaveowner — that the flag?s defenders recall when claiming ?heritage, not hate.? That his flag is also the symbol of choice for the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups is a bastardization of its original values, they say.
Yet the widespread use of the battle flag only emerged when the South began its second insurrection, after the Dixiecrat schism with President Truman?s civil rights agenda in 1948. That is when the flag?began appearing?at Ole Miss football games — a tradition that lasted until 1997 — and at political rallies for a generation of segregationists.
Southern states began officially recognizing the battle flag once white supremacy came under greater threat from the federal government. In 1956, Georgia included a large Confederate emblem on its state flag. In 1961, South Carolina began flying the battle flag over its state capitol.?After an uproar, the South Carolina flag was moved?to another place?on the capitol grounds in 2000, and Georgia removed the Confederate cross from its flag in 2001. But when Mississippi put our flag to a state referendum that same year, voters preserved the Confederate design by a 2-1 margin.
Divisions over the flag run long and deep.?The vitriolic campaign that led to that vote should have itself disqualified the 1894 flag from consideration. After all, a symbol that divides fails its most elementary test of fitness.
As with so many issues in Mississippi, opinions are assumed to be bifurcated by black and white (while the opinions of Mississippians of other races and ethnicities are not considered at all). I will not try to put words to the feelings of any others, especially those who haven’t shared in Mississippi?s bounty because their skin color is darker than mine.
I will, however, tell you what the flag means to me. As a white native Mississippian, the flag is indeed part of my heritage — but that heritage is hardly synonymous with honor. ?The flag celebrates a history of white supremacy and black oppression, of state-sanctioned dehumanization and violence, of economic manipulation and political subjugation. I cannot say whether my ancestors, few of whom have deep Southern roots, owned slaves or fought for the Confederacy. But I still owe my privilege today to the people?s ancestors who did, and the flag is a stark reminder that Mississippi has not moved past their legacy.
Privilege can sometimes be?a hard thing to see in yourself. It?s even harder to renounce. On one level, giving up a flag is a trivial concession for a white Mississippian who sits comfortably atop the economic, social, and political hierarchy created under its reign. Symbolic changes do not uproot the institutions that perpetuate racial disparities in wealth, academic achievement, incarceration, disease, and many other intertwined issues.
But on another level, I believe that?s precisely why it is important for white Mississippians — particularly those of my generation — to speak out against the flag. Mississippi’s Confederate iconography?has always been a wedge used by the majority to diminish the citizenship of the minority. Until?Mississippi surrenders its emotional attachment to the artifacts of white supremacy, it’s unlikely that progress will be made on the material?injustices and inequities that our generation has inherited.
The greatest irony of the flag debate is that Mississippi does have a heritage of valor, nobility, and honor that can be matched by few states. It involves outmanned and overpowered Mississippians who took a stand armed only with the courage of moral conviction. It is the story of many uncelebrated heroes who laid down their possessions and their lives for the unalienable rights that they hoped their children and grandchildren might one day be able to exercise.
That proud heritage will be celebrated soon in the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum, due to open in conjunction with the state’s bicentennial in 2017. Yet the commitment, however incomplete, to full and equal citizenship that will be documented within the museum can never be affirmed as long as the flag of secession and segregation flies above it.
Therefore, while we have Mississippi’s attention on the topic of symbols, let’s advocate for a flag that represents our shared values. Then — and only then — does the State of Mississippi deserve to talk about what we put God’s name on.
I am one of those Mississippians (Ok, Mississippian expatriate) who sees both good and bad in the Confederate heritage of the State. I see both of those things in the state flag when I see the Confederate battle flag in the corner. I still respect Robert E. Lee. That said, I know what a symbol of hatred the battle flag has become. For that reason, I think the current state flag SHOULD be done away with. There is another symbol of the good aspects of the historical heritage that does not bring up the message of hate that the battle flag does. Let’s use it.
In the period of the CSA, Mississippi’s state flag was a white flag with a blue canton in the upper left corner with the single star (the design of the “Bonnie Blue Flag”) with a red bar down the right edge of the flag and a magnolia tree in the center. It is, in my opinion, a beautiful flag. It is one of our historical symbols and so no one can say we are denying our history. But by giving up a flag that contains a symbol that has been adopted by white supremacist hate groups, we can say to the rest of the nation “We too are ready to move forward and not just pay lip service to that idea.”
The white supremacist used the US flag first and most often, and have returned to the US flag. There is no reason we should give up our flag. We hope others will learn the truth. If you change everything that everyone finds offensive, there won’t be much left, anywhere in this country. Maybe that’s the point? One big, nameless, faceless country.
Debbie,
I agree wholeheartedly about not leaving aside our symbols to become nameless and faceless. Let’s consider the flag I suggested.
In the top left corner is the “Bonnie Blue Flag,” which was and is still used as a symbol of state sovereignty and states’ rights. One of the things that we argue when supporting Confederate heritage is that the War was more about states’ rights than slavery. Let’s then go back to an initial symbol of that ideology rather than one that has been adopted by white supremacist groups.
The coloration of the flag, other than the magnolia tree, is the same as the US flag. Mississippians are, by and large, a patriotic lot. While Mississippi may have fought for its right to secede from these United States, since we lost that right militarily, we maintain devotion to them. This coloration symbolizes that.
The magnolia tree then stands in as a symbol of our state that everyone recognizes. It also can be a sign of Mississippi’s love for nature. Loving the outdoors and nature, shopping at farmers’ markets… those are things that are very “in” right now and are something Mississippians have always done just as part of who we are. Why not advertise that?
In conclusion, my suggestion doesn’t give up our symbols. It recasts them in ways that maybe we can actually get people to listen to what we have to say rather than dismissing us out right because of what they see as a symbol of hatred.
Justin, I like that you want to get along with everyone, but, that’s not possible and we have already given up too much of our heritage. The Bonnie Blue is under fire, as we speak, in a town in Florida. What you aren’t seeing is that the only way to satisfy those who hate the Confederacy is to remove and eradicate all things Confederate. Why? Because all the lies about Lincoln and slavery have been pushed on us since the war. Now, people are becoming aware that Lincoln was not a good man or a good president. That the war was never about slavery, the north brought every single slave to this country. Now is the time to stand your ground, be proud that your ancestors had the vision and courage to fight to preserve the original constitution. The Grandfathers of the Confederates created this country and the grandsons defended it, through 2 world wars. The South, the Battle Flag (which is the soldeirs flag) are symbols of freedom. That is why it is hated by liberal progressives. I don’t care what lies and mean spirited comments come to this. If only one person realizes the truth, that’s one more person. The State Flag of Mississippi has 13 stars, one for each of the original colonies and the cross of St. Andrew, a tribute to the Christian spirit of the country. Nothing wrong with that. Those who choose to see our flag as racist will always find something that offends them. I, for one, am tired of the rhetoric. We are Southern, we love our ancestors, of all colors, and we will honor them.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. We need to repeal the flag of 1894 and return to the Magnolia Flag. This is the compromise Mississippi needs because it preserves our heritage without disregarding the opinions of 40% of our fellow Mississippians.
Ah yes, the milennial adaptation of History according to Howard Zinn. You are proof sir that mass education adopted at the turn of the 19th century is, as predicted by Jay Albert Knock , still failing to produce an educated thinking peoples on any level. IMHO, your “formal education in an institution of higher learning” has not educated you as a “thinker” but merely “trained you to profess your ideology. My point here is to the treatment of Reconstruction as a mere spec of fly excrement on the pages of history.
When I retired in California my neighbor couldn’t understand why I would ever leave his version of “Paradise” and return to the place of my “Heritage”. I didn’t bother to waste any air on that fellow.
“Mere speck of fly excrement.” Thanks, I’ll have to use that one!
And so abides the Hegelian dialectic!
Props to ya, youngster. I thought for sure you would pounce on my “intentional” typo in old Al’s last name. There’s obviously hope for you or, you’re just shinin’ me by feigning interest. Bah By.
Mr. McGraw, you have no idea what you are writing about. First, and foremost, the flag can only be changed by a public vote. Secondly, it is obvious that you are not of Southern descent. The canton of the flag should not offend any white or black person. It should only offend those who wish for a large central government. The war was never about slavery and that was common knowledge until the early 1970’s. As far as Robert E. Lee, you should be so fortunate to be half the man he was. I love Mississippi, our flag, and our people. I just wish you had spent some time learning history.
Thanks for reading, Debbie. For the record, I was born, raised, and educated in Mississippi, and I love it every bit as much as you do.
Jake being born here doesn’t mean that you understand the history. You sound like a ‘reconstructed’ Southerner. You would really love Mississippi if you knew the horrors we survived and the honor of our people. There were black Confederates, too, did you know that? There are many people who know the truth about Lincoln and that awful war. Did you know that Lincoln was a racist? Or that he openly admitted that, of course, secession was legal, but that he couldn’t do without the taxes from the South. Morrill Tariff.
“I love Mississippi! I love her people! Our customs. I love and respect our heritage.? These famous words, Debbie, were used by a “leader” who decided to rile up a crowd of “heritage” supporters in 1962. The fact that you don’t see the irony in your repeating this statement in 2014 is dismal. History is very important to all Mississippians regardless of race or ethnicity. Learning from history is even more important. The Civil War (not the War of Northern Aggression) happened a long time ago. However, the effects of the policies and laws that stemmed from the States’ rights agenda that came about after 1865 is still relevant today. It is my sincere prayer that you aren’t teaching future Mississippians an inaccurate version of what transpired for an entire century after the Civil War.
You make no sense. What’s dismal is your not seeing that it was Lincoln who was the original ‘leader’ who ‘whipped up a crowd’. It was not a civil war. It doesn’t matter that it happened a long time ago. The reason we are living in a police state with no rights is because the north invaded and forced the South to be a part of his ‘grand plan’. With out states ability to be sovereign, there can be no individual freedoms. That’s the point. Lincoln was a socialist and we are paying for his grand ideas, today. Karl Marx was so in awe of Lincoln that he wrote about him and used Lincoln’s tactics. Have you ever read Lincoln’s pamphlet, ‘Little Sermons in Socialism’? Research it.
You’re living in a police state? I’m curious – what rights do you wish you had that you don’t? It’s true that Lincoln believed in a stronger Federal government like Alexander Hamilton, but he was no socialist. I’ve read the pamphlet you mention and it’s clear then that he wanted to use government to help people. He even advocated for women’s suffrage in 1836. Like the pathetic neo-confederates, you probably think public education is a socialist construct. The USA is a great nation that has lifted up people and provided great economic opportunities and riches to millions. I really don’t see how you can argue the success of the USA – even with all our faults.
@ Debbie Mississippi’s reason for seceding is on record, and it is not consistent with your uneducated comments concerning Mississippi’s reason for seceding. For your convenience, I have posted Mississippi’s articles of secession below:
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of
Mississippi from the Federal Union
In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the
government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we
should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at
the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but
submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union,
whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will
sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and
was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the
Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the
vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired
from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to
that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the
government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it
by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has
utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to
maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and
incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular
mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made
combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of
emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition
without providing a better.
It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose
was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to
our lives.
It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.
It has given
indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate
our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.
It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of
aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.
It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed
schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in
friendship and brotherhood.
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain
in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either
submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of
money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure
this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than
this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation;
and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with
the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting
belief of our ability to maintain it.
Did you read it? Yes, slavery became an issue, but it was never the reason for the war. It always amazes me that most of the people who want to bash the South, want to live here. If the Southern people, and our desire for freedom and our distain for large central government is so offensive to you, why do you stay? As far as uneducated, well, I would be surprised if you have studied the war more than I have.
it’s clearly spelled out and the authors own their bigotry. you should too. The war was about slavery. The war was about slavery. MS went to war to keep her slaves. You can dress it up as states rights or cast the USA as socialist all you want, but the war was about slavery. period.
It’s just worth pointing out that Mississippi has existed for almost 200 years as a state, and spent a whopping 4 of those years in the Confederacy. With so many other important defining characteristics, I will never understand why the state advertises such a small one.
Via Len Amato…bitterness and hate created by the late civil strife has, in my opinion, been obliterated in this state, and would have long since been entirely obliterated, were it not for some unprincipled men who would keep alive the bitterness of the past, and inculcate a hatred between the races, in order that they may aggrandize themselves by office, and its emoluments, to control my people, the effect of which is to degrade them.
Hiram Rhodes Revels
First African American Senator (Mississippi)
Minister
Republican
Sound familiar? This is what you do when you try to pit the Southern people against one another. Senator Revels saw it.
This is what was on the minds of the Southern leaders. Sound familiar? ALWAYS use original sources for research NOT the gov provided propaganda. Slavery wasn’t what they were concerned with.
?If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.
They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; the future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.?
Source: Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, in Our Danger and our Duty, 1862
Walter E. Williams ( who also happens to be a black man), Professor at George Mason University:
“The flag over the Confederate Flag is not quite as simple as the nation’s race experts make it. They want us to believe that the Flag is a racist symbol. Yes, racists have used the Confederate Flag, but racist have also used the Bible and the U.S. Flag. Should be get rid of the Bible and lower the U.S. Flag? Black civil rights activists and their white liberal supporters who are attacking the Confederate Flag have committed a deep, despicable dishonor to our black, patriotic ancestors who marched, fought, and died to protect their homeland from what they saw as Northern aggression.”
“There was no organized State government, no central civil authority, no militia, to which the people might look for the protection of life or property.
The district governments, whose functions were limited and whose
powers were quite inadequate to meet existing difficulties, maintained an apparent authority, but how far, in the changed order of things, their powers really extended it might have been difficult to determine.
The appearance of United States troops to garrison the different
cities and towns evidenced the presence of constituted authority
superior to that theretofore exercised.
Government
of the United States, acting by its military officers, was in
actual possession of the territory of South Carolina?in actual control of the entire population. The military authority extended to
every act of the citizen in his relations to government. Court martial or military commissions or provost courts tried most questions formerly cognizable in the civil tribunals?their jurisdiction including all criminal offenses, from petit larceny to murder. Police regulations?the ordering of towns, the restriction of the sale of intoxicants, the subordination of the citizen to ordinances and rules of conduct?all these were administered by the military courts.
The trial by jury not available, the question of guilt or innocence was decided by the post commander, or the provost marshal, or the provost court, or the military commission, according to the grade of the offense. There was harshness of administration, there was arbitrary use of power, there were instances of injustice.”
RECONSTRUCTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA
1865-1877
John S Reynolds
1905
So it wasn’t enough for them to act like subhuman mongrels to the citizenry. It wasn’t enough for them to steal everything they could get their covetous hands on; and what they couldn’t carry off they broke into pieces…just because they could. Well, of course what BIG MEN they were to unarmed, helpless women, old men and children. GREAT BIG MEN….brutes and bullies, but that wasn’t enough was it? Nope! Humiliate, shame and embarrass for 12 long hellish years. GREAT-BIG-STRONG-MEN…
@ Debbie. Debbie please don’t disillusion yourself that you are the South in it’s entirety, and that everyone here shares your views. You are only a part of the South as am I. I was born and raised in the South. I love the South, and that is why I live here–I’m not going anywhere. Mississippi is my home too! How would you feel If I asked why don’t you leave Mississippi–if you hate change so much–to go live amongst the Aryan Nation that is in high concentrations in the Upper Midwest? It would appear that you are quite read on the South, The Civil War, and Secession;however, you’ve not taken in the knowledge literally, but the rose colored, cherry picked versions to prove your point. It is one thing to be ignorant-unread, but something entirely different to be foolish which (I hope you) than an unashamed bigot that sees nothing wrong with sins of the South. No Christian woman should defend the secession of the South. A Christian woman may commemorate those who gave their lives in defense of the South, but should not glorify them, and say what they did was righteous. Robert E. Lee and the Confederates fought to preserve the right to maintain slavery in the American South. That is why Mississippi seceded and that is accepted fact. Don’t tee tee on me and tell me it’s rain. Your posts are very misleading if you are well read on the Civil War! You may post a rebuttal, but I am done discussing this matter with you further. Such discourse rarely leads to a change of the mind or heart. Go in peace!
This tension exploded in a remarkable speech given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens, in 1861, commonly known as the [Cornerstone Speech][1]. Like the Articles of Secession, Stevens’ speech devastates the argument that the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery or racism. In essence, Stevens argued that Jefferson was wrong about liberty, because true liberty is racist.
“The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically … Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. … Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”
This tension exploded in a remarkable speech given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens, in 1861, commonly known as the [Cornerstone Speech][1]. Like the Articles of Secession, Stevens’ speech devastates the argument that the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery or racism. In essence, Stevens argued that Jefferson was wrong about liberty, because true liberty is racist.
“The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically … Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. … Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”
Debbie, please respond after reading. Thanks.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify
the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection
with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we
should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
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. That blow
has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its
consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of
abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to
work out our ruin.
That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few
facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the
well-known Ordinance of 1787, in
regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than
half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory
acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses
protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the
government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to
extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of
expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost
every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our
fathers pledged their faith to maintain…
This was voted on a few years ago an a majority of the people of the State of Mississippi said to leave it alone. Now you get a pinhead little PC liberal that wants to change apart of the history of this state. The people of Georgia fail to stand behind there historical flag and now they have a dud of a flag. For you who do not like this historical emblem just move.
Let’s make it a flag of surrender, white totally, our heritage means nothing …Bulllshit, slavery is what my white ass has been paying for my whole life, take my hard earned money, give it to lazy non-working people , no matter the color, and call it right, more bullshit
White or black, MISSISSIPPI has the most polite and friendly people in the USA, and tyes there are some that prove that wrong, but not the majority
I would like to make one simple point here. I am an alumni of the Kappa Alpha Order. That being said, I would argue that I know a bit more about Robert E. Lee than you Jake. So lets get one glaring flaw in your description of this great man straight, right here and now. Robert E. Lee DID NOT own slaves. A well written article should be written upon greatly researched subject matter. A goal you fell well short of here. The only other thing I can add to this discussion is this; doesn’t MS have more important issues to deal with than the state flag? I love MS as much or more than anybody, but arguing over the flag whilst other more worthy issues are abound is truly ignorant.
Thank you for reading, Chad. Several things. First, your membership in a fraternity is no credential of expertise. Please offer evidence for your claim that Robert E. Lee was not a slaveowner. The common rebuttal is that it was his wife Mary Custis Lee who actually “owned” the slaves, but that is disingenuous. Lee was the executor of his father-in-law’s estate and expressly disobeyed his request to free the slaves for five years: http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm
Second, I agree that Mississippi has deeper problems. I make that point in my commentary, and a brief glance at the other articles on the site will demonstrate that we do not neglect “more worthy issues.” I believe the flag is worth discussing because it is intimately connected to those issues, and that Mississippians have the capacity to think about more than one problem at a time.
I do appreciate your reply Jake, but your missing the point. First, I did not speak as an expert on the life and lore of Robert E. Lee. Merely stated the fact that I do indeed know more about the man than yourself. That is a fact. Secondly, we must focus on what it means to “own” something. You are obviously an Ole Miss grad, so lending this discussion to lawyer speak should fit well for you. Being the executor of an estate in no way proves ownership of the assets of said estate. Therefore, saying Gen. Lee “owned” slaves in generality is still absolutely false in nature. And lastly, I do agree that “some” Mississippians have the ability to think about more than one issue at a time. My point was that the flag issue, being very petty in comparison to the other problems within MS, should be much further down the line of problems worthy of attention. Maybe consider the poverty issues, education problems, and most importantly the blatant abuse of the welfare system. If you need any education or help understanding that last issue I mentioned, come spend some time in the Delta. To sum up my argument here, fix the real issues first, before attacking a flag that really isn’t hurting anybody in their daily lives.
I don’t mind your disagreeing with me, Chad, but I don’t understand why feel the need to boast that your knowledge is superior to mine. Regardless, I don’t care to debate the intricacies of 19th century property law, so how about we compromise by saying Robert E. Lee was a “slavemaster” instead of a “slaveowner”?
And I would again encourage you to read the other articles on the site. You may not agree with the point of view, but we also write extensively about poverty, education, and “welfare.”
First off there Jake, congrats, you almost managed to hide the snide undertone in the first part of your response with decent wording and an offer to compromise. ALMOST. Might I suggest you find a few minutes to learn the difference between boasting and stating facts. Confidence and cockiness are drastically different character traits that I would think a writer with your education could distinguish from one another more easily.
My main problem with writers like yourself is your willingness to give up, nay abandon important pieces of state history just to please John Q. Public. Sure, to some, the flag may represent hatred and darker times. But to others it represents heritage and a defining part of what makes MS what it is. Ole Miss gave up Colonel Reb, and now they want the flag. At what point to we as a society draw the line here? You can’t erase MS history thru this method. What’s next…ban white pillow cases, or horses even? They were both used by the Klan so by gosh lets get rid of them too! If you wanna improve MS, focus on the worthwhile issues that affect our daily lives. MS is what it is, good AND bad! The energy spent on worrying about petty stuff would by far be better spent on those serious issues, therefore improving Mississippi’s image. Fact is people are too worried about Mississippi’s image to try fixing those real problems. It’s jus easier for people as yourself to give up a mascot or a flag than work hard to conquer the true problems. And lastly, welfare is a real thing,, not an idea. The use of quotations there was unnecessary.
I had an inkling that debating you would be fun, Chad, and I was right. I still don’t see the evidence that you know more about Robert E. Lee than I do. I’m not saying it’s not true, just that you’ve offered no proof. Same as your claim that he did not have slaves working on his plantation, except to argue that his wife was technically the “slaveowner.” Mind you, I’m just trying to hold you to your own standards of empiricism.
You seem to be spending a curious amount of time arguing about something you consider to be so petty. This piece was meant to express my personal opinion on the flag, published on my own blog. You’re the one who chose to spend time reading it.
Moreover, I made it clear in the first two paragraphs that I raised the issue only because Gov. Bryant proposed adding “In God We Trust” to the state seal. I hope you’d also call that a distraction from more important issues — issues which I believe we have addressed quite thoroughly in other articles on the site.
And I wrote “welfare” because the term is often used as an umbrella for an undefined set of government programs. I’ll stop using quotation marks when you tell me what program or policy you’re referring to specifically.
I will keep this brief Jake, as you pointed out I’ve spent more time here than could be deemed worthwhile. I don’t recall ever saying that Gen. Lee did not have slaves working at his estate. Seems you slipped a bit there, but it happens to any person who has run out of ground, as you have here. I would assume that you could search Wikipedia or any other such sources to find proof as to my assertion that Lee didn’t own slaves. Kudos for pulling out your dictionary and finding the word empiricism. Members of Kappa Alpha Order study Gen. Lee rather intensely during their time pledging. So in a very, very small way I guess you could call me drawing upon my time studying Lee, close enough to empiricism to use that word here. I do certainly apologize for not expressly defining what I meant by the term welfare. Lastly, to address your statement fully as to why I would argue so extensively an issue that I did, in fact, describe as petty. I would give you credit for being clever in calling me out as far as it being a small issue, but once again you missed the point entirely. The flag issue is petty IN COMPARISON to the other issues that plague the state. However, the flag issue is FOREFRONT in the battle to hold on to the symbols, history, and times past that made MS what it is. I will, however, oppose changing the seal as well. This is your blog Jake, and I will leave you to it.
It is impossible to make people, like our friend Jake here, believe anything but what their carpetbagger education has taught them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I recognize your extensive knowledge of General Lee’s virtuous character, brother. It is a damn shame that the world has resorted to such a mislead and victimized society that regards Robert E. Lee to be nothing but a rebelling slaveowner, and feels entitled to an apology when they feel offended by the truth. Although we are a dying breed, it is comforting to know that there are at least a few likeminded gentlemen left in this Godless world. Thank you for defending the honor of the South and Her beloved General. Wheat Barley
Just came to this great blog and this article and post/comments. You argued well and your logic is correct, in my opinion. The people disagreeing just can’t face facts when they are right in front of them.
As a Yankee who lived in Mississippi and fell in love with the place, I see the attachment to the flag as more of a statement of Mississippians (and Southerners in general) historic resistance to the never abating cultural imperialism of far more populous and economically and politically powerful regions and states. Where I grew up in the Northeast, Mississippi and the South were viewed as third world backwaters who had to be “civilized” in accordance with Northeast/West Coast standards which were considered by them the only legitimate expression of what America should look like. Plus, in my experience Southerners and Mississippians sure as hell do not like to be dictated to by anyone, especially the likes of LA lawyers. I can’t speak on the meaning of the Battle Flag, my ancestors fought against it. But I know for a fact all those I knew in Mississippi who displayed the state flag of the CBF did so exclusively out of pride in being a Mississippian, not out of racism. The irony is growing up in the liberal and “open minded” Northeast I heard the “N” word on a daily basis and nearly everywhere I went. In the years I spent in MS I never heard it once.
True that, same here brother. Some much more common out of the mouths of NY Irish & Italians.
I likes the original Mississippi flag with the Magnolia tree and the Bonnie Blue design. (However, I am a Florida boy) I have met one Anglo dude from the south who could identify the original Stars & bars as the original southern flag. When I ask an Anglo guy or gal why they like the Southern Cross over 2 other flags used in the conflict, they don’t know what I am talking about.
The Southern States lost the war when they put the “lost cause” of slavery expansion in the CSA’s constitution and Ordinances of Secession (Florida the only in explicit exception).
That being said, the use of the any of the four (4) Confederate era flags should be taken in “context” of use. I have nothing against any of them used in a civil manner. Whether one is black, white, yellow, brown or red context & vibe are key. One knows it when they see it & feel it.
As far as the honorable fighting men of the south, there were many. But there were many douchebags too. (e.g.: Nathan Bedford Forest, Gen. Barksdale, Leonidas Polk, Jubal Early, et al) I have noted that I don’t see too many mentions General James “Ol Pete” Longstreet or Gen. Longstreet t-shirts. Why? Gettysburg’s outcome or because he became a Republican and used black soldiers to put down “White rebellions” like the Colfax massacre after the war? Coincidence or conspiracy?
Why not just bring back the Magnolia flag? It has a real connection to Mississippi history without having been tainted by any hate groups. It seems like the perfect solution to be.
I second.