Why Is Heritage Defense Important?
From Dixiepedia: The PC-Free Encyclopedia
by Jeff Melton
Immediately following the events of the War for Southern Independence, the Southern States (the former States of the Confederacy) went into a period of Reconstruction, which is commonly said to have lasted until 1876. This is because that is the time when the actual federal troops were removed from the Southern States. Prior to that time, the Southern States were imposed to martial law, and a rule by the federal army.
During the period of time that the South was under direct Reconstruction (with the actual presence of federal troops), the Southern people were subjected to heavy abuses in the Northern-controlled Congress. In addition to confiscatory taxation rates, which fully benefited Northern interests at the expense of the Southern people, there were also strict rules concerning former Confederate high-ranking officials. Those who were in the Confederate government could no longer serve in elected positions, nor could they even vote.
Meanwhile, during this same time period, there were restrictions on depictions of the Confederacy. For instance, it was routine that men wearing Confederate army jackets were arrested. Also, flags used by the Confederacy were expressly forbidden. This was all a heavy-handed attempt by the Northern-controlled government to replace the Southern people’s devotion to the Confederacy (and the causes for which they fought) with a new reverence for the symbols of the United States (the very government that these people had chosen to separate themselves from).
While the federal troops were there, constant venom was spewed by Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner (among others of their ilk) against the Southern people. These people had an unhidden hatred for the South and their customs, and could not understand why the Southern people held so hard onto what they believed in—including their devotion to the Confederacy, its symbols and flags, and its former leaders. Stevens and the other radical Republican leaders in Congress raged at the fact that the Southern people would give up their heritage, no matter how oppressive the federal government’s Reconstruction programs were on them.
A friend of Stevens remarked to the anti-Southern Congressman that, although the South had been defeated, “Confederate generals are their heroes—Confederate dead their martyrs.” He further remarked that “[i]n all the stores of Richmond…I did not see the picture of a single Union general or politician, but any number or Rebels.”(1) With the way the South was treated after the war (and during the war, with the outrageous “total war” campaigns of Sherman, Sheridan, and others), this should have come as no surprise. It does, however, show the Yankee arrogance, in assuming that the Southern people would just be willing to lie down and die, while at the same time changing their heroes for villains.
President Andrew Johnson, who was no friend to the Confederacy — and was, in fact, one of the few Southern politicians who remained in the Northern government during the war (which, needless to say, brought him the disdain of Southern leaders) — nevertheless made the following response:
“A people should be allowed to grumble who have suffered so much, and they would be unworthy of the name of men if they did not respect the brave officers who have suffered with them, and honor the memory of their gallant dead who sleep on a number battlefields around their homes.” (emphasis added)(2)
This is the kind of attitude that brought the radical Republicans down hard on Johnson, ultimately impeaching him (although they failed to remove him from office by one vote)—merely because he did not support their radical reconstruction programs, and refused to bend the Constitution to allow for these things.
Since that time, there have been numerous attempts by the Yankee-controlled government, media elites, and education establishment to paint the South as the bane of the country, and to further the attacks against the Southern people and the things that identify us as a people (i.e.: the Confederate Battle Flag, the Confederacy, etc.).
During the 1950s, such books as [[To Kill a Mockingbird]] (written by a self-loathing woman from the South, and fortunately Miss Lee’s only book) told the now nauseatingly familiar tale of the “racist” South (in this case Alabama circa 1930) started a new attack on Southern culture, by painting the South as “racist.” The media eagerly jumped on the bandwagon, and numerous articles hailed this and other anti-Southern movies (the movie was released in 1962, at the beginning of the so-called Civil Rights era).
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, there was a resurgence of Southern pride leading up to the centennial of the War for Southern Independence. In 1956, Georgia adopted a new State flag, which incorporated the Confederate Battle Flag (along with the State seal). In 1962, South Carolina started flying the Confederate Battle Flag on its Capitol dome (under the U.S. flag and the South Carolina flag). For a time, the proud defiance that the South had shown in the past—that same defiance to tyranny that had sustained it through four years of depravation and war—appeared ready to re-surface. There were clear showings of defiance to federal tyranny in the words and actions of Southern political leaders—but only for a season. When the federal troops moved into town, that defiance soon evaporated.
Since the “Civil Rights” era, the attacks on Southern culture have increased to the point that they are now a daily occurrence. In the 1990s, the NAACP announced their all-out war on the Confederate Battle Flag, proclaiming that it was their goal to eliminate it from public view. Since that time, they have garnered the support of groups like the NCAA, Coca-Cola Company, and various other big business enterprises (not to mention the ever-willing liberal media) to accomplish much of that objective.
In 2000, after a few years of political grandstanding and hypocrisy, the South Carolina legislature capitulated to threats of boycotts and voted to remove the Confederate Battle Flag that had flown atop the Capitol dome in Columbia for nearly forty years. South Carolina, the first state to secede and the state most identified with defiance to federal tyranny, caved in to pressure from within—from the business community and the chambers of commerce (this despite the fact that the presence of the flag at the Capitol dome resulted in no net loss of tourism income, despite the NAACP-led boycott). Shortly thereafter, the legislature in Georgia voted to change the Georgia flag (which incorporated the battle flag into its design) into an absolute eyesore of a flag that didn’t last very long. However, the 1956 flag never returned.
It is not at all unusual to hear a story of Confederate t-shirts being banned at government schools (something that would have been unbelievable when I was a child attending school). This is made all the worse by the insidious lies told about the Confederacy, and indeed the Southern people in the government school system, the media, and the so-called “civil rights” organizations such as the NAACP. One particularly infuriating insinuation is the comparison of the Battle Flag to the swastika. This type of inflammatory rhetoric is increasing by the enemies of the South, and taking hold in the minds of their willing (and ignorant) accomplices.
Today, in colleges, it is not uncommon for students to accept the preposition that the Confederate Battle Flag is “offensive.” After all, government schools—whether at the grade level or the college level—are hardly known as places where liberal doctrine is questioned and analyzed. Quite the contrary. They have become little more than indoctrination camps, and the students must learn to hate their own heritage and culture, while at the same time glamorizing and canonizing the imperfect histories of the leaders of the “civil rights” movement. Holidays memorializing Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson (or Confederate Memorial Day) have been replaced with new holidays to honor the known communist sympathizer Michael (Martin Luther) King.
So, why is this so important? If one takes a moment to look at the history of vilifying the Southern history and culture (particularly the battle flag), and the “official story” of the War for Southern Independence that has been thrust upon all people, it can be clearly seen that there is a real agenda at play. First, there was the indelible connection to slavery that has been perpetrated upon the people. Now, after years of indoctrination, people have been conditioned to associate the Confederate Battle Flag with slavery, just like Pavlovian dogs.
Second, the people are reminded that the flag is “offensive” and a symbol of “oppression”. Apparently, if someone (who is black) sees the flag, they immediately start having slavery flashbacks. Keep in mind that truth is irrelevant. Being considered to support something that is “offensive”—particularly in this politically correct climate—is an absolutely unforgivable taboo. Therefore, it is “wrong” for people to fly the flag, have it on their license plates, or wear the image on their clothing because it is deemed “offensive” to a certain segment of the population. It is irrelevant, of course, that no one bothered to ask black people if they are so “offended” by the flag.
Now, the last phase of their agenda is unfolding—that of comparing the battle flag to the Nazi swastika. Some, who have a minute knowledge of history, will even point out that the swastika was used by ancient cultures for an inoffensive purpose; but today has a totally different meaning. It matters little that the analogy is absurd on its face. The mere connection, if it takes hold, will serve their purposes.
So, where will this lead us? In Europe, it is a crime to speak fondly of Nazi Germany—or to even question the numbers who died during the time of the concentration camps. The crime is punishable by years in prison. Can that happen here? One should certainly hope not. However, the liberals have long been pushing for “hate crime” laws in this country (which is how the situation in Europe started). Connecting those two could very well mean the death of the First Amendment for speech deemed “offensive” by the politically correct powers-that-be.
That leaves us with a choice. We can either accept that these comparisons are being made, and just choose to put our heritage and culture behind us, becoming “citizens of the world”. Or, in the alternative, we can draw a line in the sand, and be men that our forefathers would admire—as opposed to sheep upon whom they would justly heap their contempt. That choice should be an easy one to make, and it is precisely why defense of our heritage is so important.
Endnotes
1. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, p. 82.
2. Ibid, pp. 82-83.
