Scott Gosnell of Pros and Cons isn’t too impressed with the Senate’s apology.
As a matter of theory, I don’t disagree with Scott on the types of apologies engaged in by the Senate. However, as a practical matter, I think that there can be something positive brought about by dealing with our past. And seeing as how there are Senators still in the Senate who were in office during the end of the lynching period, it is not wholly out of bounds for the current Senate to make an apology.
I will concur that no concrete results will come about because of this action, and I concur that there is no doubt a great deal of politics going on here that are not solely pure of motive. However, it is also quite clear to me that we, as a nation, have not fully accepted our own past malfeasance, and that this is especially true of many (not all, but many) in the South.
I know I will take flack for this (even from members of my own family), but, really: the cavalier attitude that is taken to the fact that the founder of the KKK has a park in Memphis named after him and that huge Rebel Battle Flags are being flown over I-65 is in many ways astounding to me. Yes, men died under that flag to protect land from what they saw as invaders, and most of them did not own slaves. But the bottom line is this: had they prevailed they would have won the day for a new nation that would have existed primarily because it sought to protect the right of human beings to own human beings. Ultimately there is no honor in that. How can there be?
To be honest, when I wrote my initial post, I was mostly meaning to write something brief about the lack of participation by some in the Senate in the process and specifically in response to an e-mail I had received concerning Robert Byrd. However, it inspired far more words than intended originally on what is a topic that continues to resonate in my mind on a regular basis: which is the fact that there are far too many citizens of the former Confederacy who take far too light a view of the meaning of the Civil War–and no matter how one slices those events, one had to ultimately admit that they were about slavery. I am hardly advocating reparations or a great bout of national hand-wringing, but I do think that we have to be honest with ourselves about the past and the meaning of past symbols to the descendants of those who were mightily repressed.
At a minimum I can’t see the harm in the action undertaken by the Senate, but I can see some good in it and the topic intersects with an issue that disturbs me greatly.
cross-posted at Pros and Cons
Update: Also parked in today’s Traffic Jam.
June 14th, 2024 at 4:47 pm
Valid points, all, but perhaps you might consider this point of view link regarding the Confederate Battle Flag.
June 14th, 2024 at 5:03 pm
Here, here Steven. Very well said and I agree 100%.
June 14th, 2024 at 5:05 pm
GunTrash,
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.
June 14th, 2024 at 5:08 pm
GunTrash,
I am afraid that “sermon” is a remarkable display of logical fallacies and poor reasoning (among other things).
June 14th, 2024 at 7:14 pm
Well put. That’s why you get the big bucks.
June 14th, 2024 at 10:05 pm
I’ll try to be brief.
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
June 15th, 2024 at 3:43 pm
I would like to say, but not start an argument by saying, that some people in the former Confederacy are taught, and very addimently I might add, that the Civil War was NOT about slavery, but about States Rights. I am not trying to argue in this forum whether or not this is actually the case. However, MANY southerners are taught that way (in public schools) and therefore use that as the basis of their beliefs.
June 15th, 2024 at 5:18 pm
Mike,
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.
June 15th, 2024 at 5:19 pm
Jan,
Your point makes my point: we haven’t fully come to terms with our past–and we desperately need to do so.
June 15th, 2024 at 5:50 pm
Fair enough, Doctor. I appreciate your reply and your willingness to take comments. We’ll agree to disagree a bit on this one.
All the best to you.
Mike Davis
June 18th, 2024 at 1:42 pm
Dr. T,
I agree with your point completely.
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.