The Colorado Confederatarian

Referrin’ t’ this here story, ol’ Jim Lileks voices his crittercism  of ‘em three brave Copperhead boys who waved the Confederate Navy Jack at school, which earned ‘em a suspension and the missin’ of their grad-yiration. Yir host commints:

Ol’ Jim takes excerption t’ one of the boys’ classmates who sed that the Confederate flag had nuthin’ t’ do with slavery:

Yes, and the Union Jack was in Revolutionary War battles, and it had nothing to do with enforcing British colonialism.

Wonder what Lileks wud say to the statement that the Stars and Stripes had nuthin’ to do with the Union’s slaughter and subduin’ of the Plains Indians? Thank he’d agree or disagree? Or that itsef had to do w’ slavery, since it flew over galleys bringing slaves t’ America fo’ a time, and that slavery existed as an institution in the North even durin’ the War of Northern Aggression.

But ol’ Jimmy really don’t git the boy’s point. The point is that the Confederate flags were principally ‘bout the right of secession, that is, the right set forth in the Declarashun of Independence itsef, not slavery. Even Stinkin’ Lincoln knew that the principal issur was union or disunion, and not slavery. In a letter to Dan’l Webster, he wrote:

If I could save the Union, without freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it would help to save the Union.

Lincoln invaded the South to enforce the Union; the Confed’racy fought back because it believed it had the right to secede. It coulda been a secession over an issur completely unrelated t’ slavery. In 1832, it wuz. South Carolina almost came out of the Union over the issur of unduly burdensome tariffs.

Next, ol’ Jimmy writes:

Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to fly it; as a Northerner -- i.e., the winning side, the good guys -- it's always struck me as an emblem of unwarranted romantic attachment to secessionism, a misty Tara-and-juleps image of a pre-industrial agricultural economy based on the miseries of human bondage.

Likels ain’t only snooty, but ignurnt, as everdinced by his comment here ‘bout human bondage. Anyone who cares t’ take an honest look at the “peculiar institution” will see that it weren’t the unmixed horror Lileks and other National Myth propergandists propergandize about. Wut’s more, there is ever’ reason to believe that slavery was ohn its way out in the South anyhow, as WBTS scholars such as Jeffrey Hummel argue. Had there been no war, slavery would have eventually gone, probably by ‘round the turn of the century, and all there would be for the flag to symbolize is the “misty Tara-and-juleps image of a pre-industrial agricultural economy” of which the snooty Yankee from Minnesota speaks. ‘Course, if’n ye unpack all that condescendin’ language, y’all’ll understand why Southrons – and today an increasing number of non-Southrons – love the Old South so. There’s somethin’ ‘bout “misty Taras” and the “pre-industrial agricultural economy” which tell a soulless Yankeefied American people ‘bout somethin’ valuable, culturally speakin’, that got lost somewhere along the way. The neoconned Ringwraiths like Lileks and Hugh Hewitt are the Dark Lords of an American Mordor who thank their domination of men and Hobbits is a done deal, and that any protestations such as the one made by ‘em good ol’ boys in Minnesota are plain pointless and silly. But “hope” abides in the breasts of men and Hobbits. “It is history that teaches us to hope,” sed General Lee. History often overthrows the grand designs of damn fool liberals – and they first cousins, the no-account neocons.

It's like a bumper sticker that displays a preference for a candidate who lost in 2000: Get over it.

Yeh. Losin’ a homeland is like losin’ an election. You’ll go far with that logic, Jimmy. Tell-att to the Jews pre-1948. Or to the Southern Sudanese. Or to the Kosovar Serbs. If’n, say, Russia were to take Alaska back by force, or Mexico the American Southwest, wud Lileks jus’ “git over it?” We’ll see, when someone some day gores his ox.

T’ his credit, Lileks do seem t’ admit his bias, even if implicitly:

I understand that there's a rich tapestry of emotions and history that reside in the issue in the South, but around here "the South" is Rochester. If Sherman had burned the Mayo Clinic to the ground, I might understand, but Minnesota sent guys to Gettysburg to die for the Union.

My great-grandfather was a volunteer in the GAR (STJ - Grand Army of the Republic, the official organization of Yankee veterans), and if my kid came home waving a symbol of Dixie we'd have a serious chat. Hear that horrible grinding, rattling sound? That's your ancestors spinning in their graves. . . .

This ought to work both ways. There should be kids kicked out of school in Alabama for waving a Union flag, insisting they're just fascinated with the Northern culture they saw on the Mary Tyler Moore show. The whole deal with hot dishes and chains on the tires and playing football in the snow -- it's hard core, man. But, of course, it doesn't work like that. Teen males pick up the Southern thing because it's rebellious and it goes along with driving around listening to Skynnrd tunes and complaining about Lincoln.

Maybe not that last part so much, but I'd lay money on the Skynnrd angle.

But as ye kin see, wut he gives with the left haind he takes away with the right. Ignurnce of Things Southron once again take they toll on sound argumentation, ignurnce includin’, but not limited to, Lileks’ and the Strib’s editors’ thankin that it’s “Skynnrd” rather than “Skynyrd.”

Lastly, looks like we git to invoke Godwin’s Law early on this-un:

Just because they lack sympathy for the historical overtones isn't an excuse. You can wave a Nazi flag and insist you're just expressing admiration for the Volkswagen, but people might not believe that's the whole story. You can wave a Confederate flag in Bloomington and claim you're just demonstrating affinity for an old TV show, but it does not suggest you were wide awake and taking notes in American history class.

Tsk, tsk. I’m guessin’ the juxteeposishun of the points about the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag wuz deliberate. Shame, James. Jus’ like yir first cousins, the damn fool libruls. But as Jim Webb put it:

The venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better service the political issues of today. The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy.

An like ol’ Eugene Genovese the historian sed, anyone who tries to link the Southern Confederacy and fascism don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout neither the Southern Confederacy or fascism. Poor James: endin’ on such a weak note ‘n all. Makes us wonder how awake he was in both his American history and political science classes.

James Lileks: always witty, oftentimes confused (as here) but ever soulless. What do we expect, however, from someone who hates bluegrass music?

S. Jones