I would think the same arguments could be made about the Nazi flag. Not all the foot soldiers hated Jewish people, but the Nazi flag is NOT an appropriate symbol of German pride. And, as I understand it, it is not used that way.

All the best to you.

Mike Davis

Your point makes my point: we haven’t fully come to terms with our past–and we desperately need to do so.

I suppose the bottom line for me is this: in any war the foot soldiers are often honorable men who think they are fighting the good fight. We don’t judge the virtue of the fight, however, on the intentions of the foot soldier–we judge it on the overall goal of the conflict. There can be no reasonable argument that concludes that the war was fought, ultimately, over the protection of slavery.

Further, there is no doubt that the Battle Flag was later used as a symbol of defiance to desegregation by southern governments in the 1950s.

As such, there are better ways to honor the dead than via that flag, which has taken on a great deal of baggage.

First off, let’s clear up any misconceptions in the event there may be some. If there were such a thing as a racistometer, you could scan me with it and I wouldn’t register on it. I am not racist. 21 years in the USAF, then 15 more as a Pgm Analyst in Federal Govt, I worked with many different ethnic groups, in some cases under very stressful make-a-mistake-and-we-are-dead conditions. I didn’t care what color skin a fellow crewmember happened to have, I cared only if he was able to do his job. I judged people strictly by their behavior, not their color. A principle I still adhere to.

Also, I too am glad that those who would make slavery legal did not prevail. But, I see nothing wrong with the descendants of Confederate soldiers honoring their bravery in that struggle (mine were Union, BTW). One way they do so is by displaying the rebel battle flag, the “Southern Cross”. And yes, the Reverend does take it a bit far with his rhetoric. But, his point that the Southern Cross features the cross of St. Andrew is correct. A large percentage of the Southern population was of Scottish and Scots-Irish (Ulster) ancestry, and thus familiar with St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. They communicated on the battlefield by flag and the Confederates found that the Stars and Bars was too similiar with the Stars and Stripes. Hence, they chose the Cross of St Andrew to distinguish themselves from the Union forces – not to display their approval of slavery.

It’s true that had there been no slavery, there likely would have been no war. But strangely, the men who would make up the bulk of the armies of each side had very little interest in slaves or slavery. The Southerners were small farmers who couldn’t afford slaves. While Northeners, also being small farmers or tradesmen, had no need to own slaves. The common soldier of either side really had no interest in it. It was the large Southern aristocracy that chose to defend slavery for purely economic reasons. If you wanted your cotton picked, there was no cheaper method than by having your slaves do it.

I could go on with this, but I’ll stop. There are much smarter men (some are historians with Doctorates, no less) who’ve gone in-depth on this issue. But again, if that Southern Cross is being displayed as a matter of honoring the soldiers who fought in that war, then I don’t have a problem with it. If it’s a display of racism, then I’ll help you tear it down. I’m sure you agree with the latter, but I’m sorry that you and your claque don’t understand the honorable motives of the former.

Mike Davis
Worthington, KY

I am afraid that “sermon” is a remarkable display of logical fallacies and poor reasoning (among other things).

The link you offered is the biggest load of bull I have seen today. I can’t see how you think Steven’s points are valid, yet offer that as something to consider.