Banning The Rebel Flag is Orwellian

I am not a Southerner nor am I a racist. But I would like to bring back the Rebel flag.

H. K. Edgerton — Patriot

Few who favor this flag do so for segregation, slavery or bigotry. It is a part of the history of this country. Many blacks and whites support this flag.

I live in Asheville, NC where we have a rather prominent black supporter of the Confederate flag — H. K. Edgerton, former president of the Asheville NAACP chapter.  Mr Edgerton is described by Wikipedia as follows:

… an African-Americanactivist for Southern heritage and an African-American member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. He often is given a prominent place at rallies for the Confederate flag. A former president of the Asheville, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), he is on the board of the Southern Legal Resource Center.

Mr. Edgerton has a website: Southern Heritage 411.com. He explains his position in this video:

And this one:

Edgerton’s position on the Confederate Flag sounds reasonable, although I am not a historian capable of passing judgment on his interpretations. To be against his position, however, is to be against free speech. If his position is correct, to be against it is an attempt to suppress history. Banning the Confederate flag is Orwellian in either sense!

How many other whites and blacks feel as Edgerton does about the Rebel flag? I suspect many, but that is not relevant or measurable.

Political correctness demands that the flag be banned. No reason other than because the mythical “they” say so. The Rebel Flag is now a commandment of political correctness. Their commandments, like the original Ten Commandments, mostly begin with “Thou Shall Not” or the equivalent. The Religion of Political Correctness has its own Eternal Damnation.

Anyone in favor of Political Correctness is against Freedom. There is no way to escape that conclusion. Political correctness is coercion. It is a quasi-legal sanction designed to limit freedom. Political correctness is an attempt to abrogate the right of free speech, arguably the most important right protected by the Constitution.

We all have opinions regarding proper behavior and etiquette. Only Statists believe in political correctness with its coerciveness. The religion of political correctness believes they deserve to impose and enforce their judgments on others.

Freedom is the polar opposite of Statism. Political Correctness is a Statist weapon aimed at destroying Freedom.

Why Is The Rebel Flag So Offensive?

The Rebel flag has existed for almost a century and a half. After the Civil War segregation and slavery were much bigger issues. Over time they and bigotry have declined dramatically. Why is it now so important to destroy the Rebel Flag?

My guess is that it has little to do with the flag being racist. Instead, its banning comes now because tyranny is more powerful and emboldened than it has ever been. Statists are on the march against the weakened defenses of freedom.  A second and perhaps more important reason is that the flag is a symbol of when the myth of freedom was crushed. When a nation proclaims to be free and then prevents its people from leaving, it is not free. How does the behavior of the US in preventing people from leaving the Union differ from that of the recent Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba or East Berlin?

The Rebel flag represents the death of pretend freedom in the United States. The War for Secession could not take place in a free society. A union that was voluntary suddenly revealed itself as cruel Statism. That revelation occurred more than a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet, uneducated and ill-informed Americans still believe there is freedom in this country.

The Rebel flag is a reminder that this propaganda was never true. Let’s shove it down an Orwellian Hole and hope that people don’t remember. If the “Land of the Free” was a myth 150 years ago, who would believe that myth today?

The thoughts of Tom DiLorenzo  are consistent with some of my thoughts regarding why the Rebel Flag became such an issue today. His are not inconsistent with those of H. K. Edgerton. The Rebel Flag has always been an inconvenient issue with Statists. Stronger now than ever before, the Statists decided to destroy this flag with the hopes of burying the real tragedy that it represented over a century and a half ago.

Here is Mr. DiLorenzo’s piece:

The Jeffersonian Secessionist Tradition

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure. –Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Nov 13, 1787

Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession.  “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”

In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote:  “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part.  Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .”  Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase.  If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests.  So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation.  That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor,Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338).  The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead.  (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day).

John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation . . .” (John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).

There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition.  The following are just a few examples.

The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each.  When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.”  Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editorialists wrote.

“A war . . . is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote.  “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat.  “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates . . . .  The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”

Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.”  The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”

“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”

A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized theTrenton (N.J.) True American.  Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckenridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.

All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964).  They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association – were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

The hypocrisy and power grabs of Statism know no bounds. Today freedom has been so diminished that it is vulnerable to the bullying we politely refer to as “political correctness.” Tomorrow, freedom may be gone.