Confederate `heritage' is nothing but romantic lie

First of all, let me wish you a happy Confederate History Month. That, in case you didn't know, is what April has been designated by the governor of Virginia. I guess next, he'll be honoring the Edsel and the L.A. Clippers.

As long as he's celebrating losers, I mean.

Gov. James Gilmore III would doubtless object to that characterization. He's probably also none too happy that observers have dismissed his new ``month'' as an inappropriate honor for a cause indelibly stained by slavery. Gilmore, after all, went to great lengths to avoid that very complaint. In his proclamation he explicitly acknowledges that slavery was bad -- an institution that ``degraded the human spirit.''

Yet the Confederacy that fought to defend the institution deserves a month in its honor? Further south, the NAACP is wrong to demand that the Confederate battle flag be removed from the South Carolina statehouse? It's pretzel logic. There's a lot of that going on in the South these days.

Over the past generation, many latter-day Rebs have striven mightily to clean the stain of slavery from the Lost Cause. There's no racism here, they swear -- only the noble sacrifice of ancestors. The Confederacy has received a makeover for the new age, a redesign to make it nonthreatening, politically correct, just another stripe on the diversity rainbow.

There's even a pithy little slogan: ``Heritage. Not hate.''

Unfortunately, every time the thing is crammed into its fine silk pants of denial, the seams split, and the raggedy underdrawers of reality show right through. Meaning that every time spin doctors claim the Confederacy has nothing to do with white supremacy, the words are invariably thrown back at them -- not by guys like me, but by their own philosophical soulmates.

Like the man who walked through a recent pro-flag rally carrying a sign that advocated sending the NAACP ``back to Africa.''

Like the individual who called Charleston Mayor Joseph P. Riley Jr., a white flag opponent, ``Little Black Joe.''

Like the man who threatened to put Riley ``in my gun sights'' if His Honor marched with black people against the flag.

You almost feel sorry for them, for their inability to reject the romantic lie that began with an embittered soldier who fought for the wrong side.

``Heritage not hate?'' Who do these people think they're fooling?

Not me, I can promise you that. More important, they're not fooling people like J.D. He -- or she -- is the author of an e-mail I received a few weeks back.

``I am . . . a white racist, a white supremacist and I do not deny it,'' wrote J.D. cheerfully. That was just the beginning. It seems J.D. had read my recent column documenting in the words of its own leaders the fact that the Confederacy was built on hate.

``I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth,'' said J.D. ``I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar `heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government. . .''

It's an argument, said J.D., that plays well with ``white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy.''

Granted, J.D. is a lamentable excuse for a human being. But the analysis is astute. So here's my question: If the apostles of the new Confederacy aren't fooling me and they aren't fooling J.D., who the heck are they fooling?

It's obvious, isn't it? Only themselves.

You almost feel sorry for them, for their inability to reject the romantic lie that began with an embittered soldier who fought for the wrong side. The lie that was passed across the generations, that came to them as naturally as air and mother's milk until they lost the ability to question it. The lie that said there was righteousness in this cause.

There was not. But for the children of the old soldier, for people who've invested themselves so deeply in dream castles of legacy and lineage, that fact has proven nearly impossible to face. So they spin like a White House press secretary instead.

Heritage, not hate, they cry. Heritage, not hate.

And yeah, there's something about it that's . . . pitiable. You wonder, when will they confront the obvious? When will they see what everyone else already knows?

The heritage is hate.

--------------------------------------------End Pitts Column----------------------------------------------------

Editors:

My letter's in response to Leonard Pitts' April 13 column, "Confederate 'heritage' is nothing but romantic lie." It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding on Pitts' part of the War Between the States and its causes. Apparently, Pitts prefers his own "romantic lie"... that the Federals fought to abolish slavery when the truth is that the fight was to preserve the union and northern economic prosperity. To cast hatred and racial bigotry as "a southern thing" is very myopic and downright wrong.

The sarcastic shot about "losers" was unnecessary; we all agree that the Confederacy lost the war but a significant point Pitts misses is that we ALL lost in terms of rights forfeited (the states and the people) to the federal government.

The most significant fact Pitts overlooks is that the Confederate states seceded because of unfair taxation and unequal representation in the US Congress. Slavery was unquestionably a hot issue and on the minds of many with the election of Abraham Lincoln. Even some of the documents of the Confederacy confirm that racial supremacy---the invalid justification for slavery---was a part of their thinking. But that invalid assertion does not invalidate the founding principles of states' preeminent rights and limited government and the right of people to seek independence from oppressive governments.

It's well documented that Abraham Lincoln's paramount intent was to preserve the union. A second powerful nation to the south was an economic threat to the US that couldn't be tolerated. It's documented that Lincoln was willing to compromise on slavery to preserve the union. Other leaders fought for issues other than slavery. U.S. Grant wrote "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side." Grant didn't free his slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified well after the war.

Racial supremacy is slowly dying (at least in terms of percentages) but 140 years ago it was the prevailing attitude across America, not just in the south. To portray this attitude as exclusively "a southern thing" is wrong. Race riots were common in the north, too, as were draft riots---many northerners didn't want to enter the fight ---not even to free slaves--- which was the Union's fraudulent recruiting angle. Northern victors were very quick to seize on the slavery issue following the war and behave as if it were their original paramount objective. Wrong! Again, THE paramount issue was to preserve the union for economic reasons--pure and simple.

The war took a heavy toll and the victors wanted to PUNISH the conquered south to assuage their own guilt and disguise their own motives. The occupation, carpetbaggers and economic exploitation (popularly known as "reconstruction") was covered by a ruthless propaganda campaign to justify their unethical, bloody deeds. American history is littered with similar examples of dirty deeds justified by questionably evoking God, manifest destiny, abolition, etc. They successfully VILIFIED the south, its CAUSE and its veterans. Biased history books and Pitts' ignorance reveal that success.

Given the above points, Pitts' assertion that the Confederacy "fought to preserve the institution" of slavery is misleading if not downright false. The romantic lie he's foisting on us, by regurgitating false history, is that "noble northerners fought to abolish slavery, and therefore, everyone on the other side of the struggle was evil." The truth is, the unionists fought to preserve the union and their economic prosperity or simply because they were drafted. You'll note that black soldiers in the Union army were just as segregated as those in the Confederate army---northern soldiers held the same racist attitudes. Yes, black units are well documented in the Confederate army.

With respect to new states being admitted to the union, slave states definitely wanted more slave states in order to maintain the balance of power within the Congress. That's the only variable that would have ended slavery any earlier than 20-30 years from 1860.

The fact is, if the Confederate states had not seceded, there would have been no war and slavery would have continued for decades because the abolitionists could not muster the 2/3 majority required to initiate a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court had already ruled slavery was legal, an amendment was required to change that. Again, the secession was to avoid unfair taxes where the proceeds benefited the northern states disproportionately.

Pitts was correct to say that ignorant racists continue to pop up in pro-flag rallies (such as the fellow with a "Send the NAACP back to Africa!" sign. There's a few in every crowd and the saying goes), but I'm saying that they don't represent me nor my views on southern heritage. Those people are not my "philisophical soulmates" as Pitts asserts. Accordingly, they may place doubts in the mind of Mr. Pitts, but their actions don't, in fact, say anything about me. Mr. Pitts is projecting motivations and intentions on me that aren't fair---in fact, one might say that he's stereotyping southerners and showing his prejudice.

Yes, the Confederate government was white, and yes, many or most of them were "racists" by modern standards. Again, that was the prevailing view across America, not just the south. Many of this country's founders thought in similar ways with regard to blacks, native Americans and other non-whites---but their views on race don't annul their founding principles of "liberty for all." We now take this idea literally, that is, ALL people have a right to liberty. It's not fair to judge 18th and 19th century people by our standards just as it wouldn't be fair to judge Pitts by the accepted standard for writers or people in the 23rd century. As Tim Russert (host to NBC's Meet the Press) recently said, "In America, we eventually do the right thing."

Pitts' misunderstanding of the Confederate cause for independence notwithstanding, there is another element with respect to Confederate flags. Segregation was also based on the concept of racial supremacy and various white supremacy groups, hate groups and the KKK committed terrorism and intimidation to enforce it. These groups in their latter-day form have misused the flag and caused the Confederate battle flag (St. Andrew's Cross) to be indelibly linked with racism and segregation. In the minds of many, the symbol is forever stained by the actions of a small minority of racists. Sure, whites of good conscience should have stood up to them to prevent the staining of their symbol and, more importantly, the wrongs the racists committed. A wrong committed in retaliation for another wrong (reconstruction) is still wrong.

For the above reasons, I have suggested that Georgia should revert to its previous state flag (1878-1956) in the name of racial harmony. We do need a Confederate Heritage month and we should honor Confederate war veterans. Education is the only answer to widespread ignorance about the Confederate cause for independence such as that illustrated by Pitts' column.

Sincerely,

Steve Scroggins
Macon, Georgia

----------------------End Letter----------------

Consider this old saying: "It's better to remain silent, allowing everyone to think you are ignorant, than it is to open your mouth and convince them it's true."

This came to mind after reading a couple of news items last week about Confederate History Month and the controversy here and in South Carolina over the battle flag. But before I continue, a little background: I was born in Ohio on the 4th of July. That's about as Yankee as one can get. At least one of my ancestors fought in the Civil War for the federal government.

I enjoy reading about military history, but I'm no expert on the Civil War. The life lessons I draw from those who fought this war come from both sides. So I am not a Southerner by birth. I chose to become one after my father moved my family to Georgia when I was 10.

My earliest memory associated with the difference between Southerners and the less fortunate came when my grammar school traveled by train to Washington D.C. and New York. We all wore the same outfit: Pale yellow dress shirts, matching belts and machine-gray pants.

I bought my first Confederate cap, called a kepi, from a New York street vendor on that trip. I lost it to the wind off the Staten Island ferry while passing the Statue of Liberty.

Having established myself an improbable flag bearer for Southern heritage, I must say I have heard just about a-damn-nuff from the morons who contend it is a "romantic lie." There are 575 graves in Rose Hill Cemetery which say it was not. There are another 197 graves in Riverside Cemetery in mute testimony to the courage, valor and sacrifice made by these men so many years ago.

April is Confederate History Month across the Southeast, not just in Virginia whose unhappy governor made news when he announced it. Gov. Roy Barnes recently signed a Georgia proclamation. Confederate Memorial Day is April 26.

Confederate History Month doesn't get as much attention as, say, the recent celebration of Black History Month. I'm going to assume that anyone smart enough to read this understands why. Those people who want to equate the Civil War with the Holocaust may be politically correct. But there's a difference between being correct and being right.

Georgia joined the Confederacy in January, 1861 after a vote of 166 to 130 by the General Assembly. More than 90,000 Georgians fought for the South. Thirty major battles took place on Georgia soil. Nineteen state and federal sites and museums commemorate the war.

Strange people are wrapping themselves in the Confederate flag these days. For example, a black state senator from Augusta used the flag just last week to generate a little publicity for himself. This fellow, Sen. Charles Walker, is in charge of all the Democrats in the Senate as their majority leader. He sets the agenda for them. They dance to his tune, so to speak. Last Monday, Walker got a letter of Southern protest from a man named Ricky Peebles from Lyons. Peebles signed his name and gave his full mailing address. The handwritten, two-page letter is not the work of a genius, to put it charitably. It contains what Walker regarded as threats, but that's open to interpretation.

"I will not let you trample on the graves of our Confederate dead. I will fight you any way I have to," Peeples declares. How will he do that? Perhaps this is a clue: "You were voted into office and you can be voted out."

Walker, frightened and in a state of shock, called the Senate Information Office and had the employees there write up a press release. At the end of it, it says "In light of the terroristic threats, Senator Walker is considering enlisting the Federal Bureau of Investigations (sic) in this matter."

I am not worried we will see a repeat of Ruby Ridge. In fact, Peebles denied threatening any harm. "If I meant any physical threat, do you think I'd put my name on it?"

(The Latin word sic in brackets is used to show that a quote is literally given even though it contains an error. Walker's press release, quoting Peebles' letter, contains four or five or these.)

Of course nothing prevents Walker from milking this sad situation for all it's worth. The release is an almost comical effort to keep the Georgia flag issue heated up while the attention is elsewhere.

Peebles does not represent the defenders of Southern heritage, I'm sure. As for Walker, I have some thoughts, but I'm not sure what he represents - except maybe himself.

--------------End Woodgeard column----------------

Author's note: