Thursday, July 31, 2014

TEXAS PLATES HONOR HISTORY



Column: Confederate license plates honor history

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
Click Here!
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:27 pm
“I’ll not willingly offend, Nor be easily offended; What’s amiss I’ll strive to mend, And endure what can’t be mended”
— Isaac Watts
A request by The Sons of Confederate Veterans to honor their forefather’s service with a Texas license plate is a simple fund-raising effort by a historical association with a long history of civic involvement.
Race-baiting and politics, however, seem to play more of a role in the coverage of this issue than the actual facts of the matter. This weeks’ 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling supporting free speech and ending the state’s denial of their request reveals what happens when such inflammation is replaced by thoughtful examination. The ruling is a win for a common sense.
To begin, The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a private nonprofit established in 1896, is requesting to pay for a license plate displaying their logo and their name.  The logo contains the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, commonly known as the Confederate battle flag. The SCV would pay the State of Texas $8,000 for the right to have a plate then recoup costs with each plate sold.
I am a member of the SCV; my great-grandfather James Monroe Cole served in the Louisiana Infantry during the War, died in the Texas Confederate Veterans Home and is buried in the Texas State Cemetery here in Austin.
As a statewide elected official, I sponsored the plate because of my commitment to Texas history — even the history others might find offensive.
It’s the same reason I sponsored a license plate to honor The Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, another private, nonprofit organization interested in marketing their heritage with a license plate that displays their logo and their name.
Both plates represent private organizations proud of their history. Both are symbols for service to the state of Texas. But political correctness has warped perception of those ideas.
I am proud to support the Buffalo Soldiers license plate because these black troops deployed to the western frontier after the Civil War and served with great distinction in Texas. Many were recipients of the National Medal of Honor.
But an examination of the Buffalo Soldiers actions could also be deemed insensitive and politically incorrect. They were sent to Texas to implement a national policy of subjugation and enslavement of the Native American population, which is exactly what they did. They implemented a national policy forcing Indians into reservations to live essentially as prisoners of war held by the U.S. Government.
Is this a history of which we should be proud? Should these soldiers be commemorated on a license plate?
Of course they should.  The Buffalo Soldier license plate, just like the Confederate plate, is intended to honor soldiers who served with pride and dignity in defense of Texas. That’s all.
Viewed through our 21st century lens of political correctness, both the Buffalo and Confederate soldiers could be considered by some as having fought for a cause that fell short of the high moral ground. In the end, offensive behavior can be found throughout history if you’re looking to be offended.
Detractors often contend the Confederates’ effort to “destroy the union” or wage an “unlawful rebellion” are prima facie reasons why all things Confederate are just not worth memorializing. By that logic our unlawful revolt against King George, the “unlawful” secession by Mexico from Spain in 1810 and the “unlawful” secession by Texas from Mexico in 1836 also shouldn’t be celebrated today.
There is no statutory protection against being offended. Actually, it’s the privilege of every American to be offended. But that shouldn’t interfere with our willingness to understand the past in its own context, not from our present perspective.
For example, President Abraham Lincoln reveals himself to be what we would now consider a racist in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debate in Charleston, Illinois. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negros, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people,” Lincoln said.
And for those who believe every Confederate soldier was fighting solely to perpetuate slavery, I’ll end with the quote of one of the greatest Americans of all time.
“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age,” wrote Robert E. Lee while stationed in Texas before the Civil War in 1856, “who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil . . .we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers. . .”
JERRY PATTERSON was re-elected to a third term as Texas Land Commissioner in 2010 and is responsible for managing billions of dollars of state assets, investments and mineral rights on behalf of the schoolchildren of Texas. He is a retired U.S. Marine, Vietnam veteran and former state senator.

Monday, July 28, 2014

BUDGET AND FINANCE DEADLINE FOR FALL GEC MEETING ANNOUNCED


Compatriots,

 
The Budget and Finance Committee will review funding requests prior to the Fall GEC (General Executive Council) meeting.  Requests must be received no later than August 30, 2014 and must be received in one of two formats, to be considered!


(1)    It is preferred that requests and supporting documentation be sent as attachments to an email message directed to Adjutant-in-Chief Nash (nc46e@hotmail.com) and Executive Director Sewell (exedir@scv.org).

 
(2)     If you send the request and supporting documents in hard-copy format, they must be sent to AIC Nash, Executive Director Sewell and Army Commanders McCluney, Burbage and Lauret, who also serve on the Budget and Finance Committee.  Mailing addresses can be found on the National Committee page at: http://www.scv.org/committeeView.php?cid=BF.

Those requesting funds should read the Funding Proposal Guidelines found on the Forms and Documents page of scv.org at:
http://www.scv.org/pdf/FundingProposalGuidelines.pdf

The form to be used to make a Funding Request is also on the Forms and Documents page at: http://www.scv.org/pdf/SCVFundRequests.pdf

The information requested on the form is the minimum that is needed for consideration of a request.  Those making requests are encouraged to submit supporting information if it helps clarify the purpose and other particulars of the project.

If you have any questions regarding the guidelines, form or process, please contact me.

Douglas W. Nash, Jr.
Adjutant-in-Chief
nc46e@hotmail.com
(910) 635-9700

 

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Friday, July 25, 2014

Rally to be Held July 26 at Washington and Lee Over Flag Removal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

On Saturday, July 26th, there will be a rally in Lexington Virginia at 12 noon in protest of the decision by Washington and Lee University to tamper with the grave site of General Robert E. Lee. The rally will be held at Hopkins Green, which is at the intersection of Jefferson and Nelson Streets in downtown Lexington.

It has become even more important that every compatriot who can possibly attend this rally do so. A press release from Washington and Lee has basically accused the SCV of being potential thugs and vandals. W&L has closed the Lee Chapel from Friday afternoon through Sunday July 27th. According to the University, "This unscheduled closing is based on concerns for the safety of the facility and its staff on the day that the Sons of Confederate Veterans have scheduled a rally in Lexington. We must take this unfortunate precaution because of the inflammatory and threatening letters, emails and phone calls the University has received in response to the removal of reproduction battle flags from the statue chamber in Lee Chapel..."

In other words, they are suggesting that SCV members would desecrate the Lee Chapel or injure its staffers because of the disingenuous actions of President Ruscio. No group honors the Lee Chapel and wishes it to be protected more than the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This closure is a gratuitous insult to one of America's finest and oldest heritage groups.

It is imperative that our members attend the rally if possible, and it is important that we gather as Southern gentlemen in the manner of General Lee himself and with the dignity that his memory deserves. We must show the University that the continuing attempt to demonize the tens of millions of descendants of the Confederacy should stop and be replaced with genuine understanding and communication.

Ben Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations

New Chief of Heritage Operations Named

 
Compatriots,

In light of the issues at Washington Lee University, I feel it is important to let the membership know who I appointed to the position of Chief of Heritage Operations. Mr. Ben Jones, currently from Virginia, was a former US Congressman from the state of Georgia. His expertise in dealing with high profile situations is one of the many reasons he was chosen. His diplomatic skills will prove to be invaluable in this position.

On many occasions he has proven that he loves his Southern heritage by the fights he has already participated in. One of the most recent that many may remember is when he took on Warner Brothers after they announced they would remove the Confederate Battle Flag off the

General Lee, a car he repaired in the Dukes of Hazard. Yes, Mr. Jones is none other than "Cooter" in the hit TV series that still captivates audiences through out the world. He won that battle, as he has many, and brought awareness to the history of the flag, as well as the Southern people. I hope you will join with him as he guides us through the future heritage issues.

Deo Vindice!

Charles Kelly Barrow
Commander-in-Chief
Sons of Confederate Veterans 

New Executive Director Chosen

 
The Sons of Confederate Veterans has been blessed to have Ben Swell as Executive Director for 12 years. Under his leadership, the SCV has prospered and flourished with his expertise. When Mr. Sewell announced that he would retire, it was known that it would be difficult to find someone of the same caliber.

In Charleston, at the National Reunion, it was announced that Lt. Col Mike Landree, USMC, will follow Mr. Sewell as Executive Director. It is an exciting new chapter for the SCV, and I feel like Lt. Col Landree will continue to lead the SCV into the future. Lt. Col Landree will begin in his new position on December 1, 2014.

So at this time I would like to say welcome aboard to Lt. Col Landree and God Speed to Mr. Sewell.

Deo Vindice!
Charles Kelly Barrow
Commander-in-Chief
Sons of Confederate Veterans 
 

Message from Commander In Chief Barrow

 
Compatriots and Friends,

Let me take this time to tell you what an honor it is to be elected as your Commander-in-Chief. Words cannot adequately describe my feelings. I am humbled to hold an office that only seventy-three men before me have held. It is my pleasure to be a thirty-five year member of the SCV. I remember attending my first Lee-Jackson Banquet at Aunt Fanny's Cabin in Smyrna, Georgia where all of my family was inducted into the SCV, UDC and CofC. It was a special moment for me but little did I know what the future held.

Through the unity of our organization and the strength of our Confederate Ancestors, we shall continue to move forward to be the preeminent authority on Southern heritage. There are many days ahead of us in the Sesquicentennial and beyond that give us opportunities to promote and honor the heroic deeds of the men and women of 1861-1865. By their examples we can learn a considerable amount; it is our ancestors who endured "Total War" from an illegal invader. Today, like our ancestors, we must also choose to stand fast or retreat? They knew their duty, do we know ours? General Robert E. Lee once said, "Duty then is the sublimit word in the English language, you should do your duty in all things, you can never do more; you should never wish to do less."

The Confederate soldiers we honor and whose DNA flows in our veins took a stand to proclaim to the world the values of our American Liberties and their commitment to its Cause. Those Principles of 1776 and 1861 are still alive today. Friends, let us reconfirm our commitment to those liberties and the Cause which we hold so dear.

I would like to close with a quote from Jefferson Davis' proclamation from April 5, 1865 in the capitol in Danville, Virginia. "Let us not, then, despond, my countrymen; but relying on the never-failing mercies and protecting care of our God, let us meet the foe with fresh defiance, with unconquered and unconquerable hearts."

I now ask you to make a stand as they did, to be unified with others of the same mindset and lineage. As with anything in life, a unified group is more effective than any individual could ever be. I hope you will join me as we honor our Confederate ancestors and as we re-dedicate ourselves to those Principles of 1776 and 1861. May God Bless You and My God Bless the Sons of Confederate Veterans

Deo Vindice!
Charles Kelly Barrow
Commander-in-Chief
Sons of Confederate Veterans
www.scv.org
 

W and L Hides Past - Caves into to Political Correctness

Quick, Hide the Past

Paul Greenberg | Jul 23, 2014
Paul Greenberg
 
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."

--Party slogan, "1984"

It is an essential part of the totalitarian mentality -- excuse me, not mentality, but to use today's neo-non-word, mindset. As if approved ideas could simply be poured into the mind to set, the way concrete is. And any trace of what was once there will be covered, effaced, smoothed over. For the past must not only be hidden but, to the well-trained mindset, it never existed at all.

It's an approach as old as the French Revolution, which was not only going to create a new socio-economic system but a New Man -- just as the Bolshevik Revolution set out to do the same. And would end in the same result: total dictatorship. Bonaparte was the natural result of one revolution, Stalin of the other.

Some things never change, except maybe the name of the dictator. The Reign of Terror became the Great Purge became Mao's Cultural Revolution as one revolution followed another, each bloodier and more terrible than the last.

It's not just results that some revolutions seek to impose but finality. For there must never be any going back to the old order, the ancien regime. Louis XVI and his queen had to be guillotined, and the Tsar's family stood against a wall and mowed down. Lest any trace of the past survive to return. Or even be remembered. Except in the caricature of history the New Order would authorize.

It's not just totalitarian regimes that insist on a kind of historical amnesia: "College to remove Lee Chapel's flags" --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 10, 2014. It seems Washington and Lee University is removing the Confederate flags from the place they occupied in the chapel, where one of its namesakes lies buried. A group of law students at the university objected to the flags' being displayed there, and so they had to be moved.

To quote the university's president, slavery was a "regrettable chapter of our history, and we must confront and try to understand this chapter."

President Kenneth Ruscio's language is itself worth confronting and trying to understand. Let's see: Slavery was "regrettable" -- like a social engagement one cannot attend, as in Mrs. and Mrs. John Doe regret they will not be able to attend high tea next Sunday a week. And we must confront human slavery, the South's "peculiar institution," to use the euphemism of an earlier time, by moving, not confronting, those Confederate flags. Quick, hide them away somewhere. Quick, before the children see.

But why remove only the flags? What about the general? Why even keep Lee's name as part of the university's? Not to mention Washington's. Weren't they both not just planters and generals but slaveholders?

No need to go into detail about how they both came to oppose slavery and eventually provided for the emancipation of their own slaves, which both of them had acquired largely through inheritance or marriage. That would mean going into history, which can be messy. Unlike ideology, which can be as superficial as President Ruscio's explanation for why the flags are being removed, which was as lengthy as it was superficial. Just forget all those bothersome historical details, along with slavery, the Confederacy and anything else in the past that might disturb our equilibrium -- or educate us.

Yes, the flags had to go. To quote the law students' letter of protest, they felt "alienation and discomfort" whenever they saw those banners. Their tender sensibilities should not have to be subjected to such a sight. It's enough to make you wonder how these law students will face up to some of the characters they may run across when they become lawyers, civil or criminal: murderers, rapists, serial killers, abortionists, chiselers small-time and big, gangsters, pimps....

Maybe these future lawyers could be given what today are called trigger-warnings, formal notices now issued by some of our more prestigious universities so their students can be forewarned, and won't risk being shocked on opening any book that deals with history, that record of mankind's follies, crimes and atrocities.

So, yes, hide those old Confederate flags away, maybe in the kind of dusty display cases museums use. Or at least call them something else, like Historical Artifacts. The way the signage for Confederate Boulevard here in Little Rock was changed to some less historically charged name.

Yes, that's the ticket. Change the name, change the past. Just as Constantinople became Istanbul, Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City, and St. Petersburg became Petrograd, then Leningrad, and now is St. Petersburg again. What's in a name? Sometimes a whole history.
No, we wouldn't want the past to live, or even be remembered. Lest it disturb our innocence, which is not always easy to distinguish these days from what used to be recognized as just plain ignorance.

http://townhall.com/columnists/paulgreenberg/2014/07/23/quick-hide-the-past-n1864736
 

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

RALLY PLANNED OVER REMOVAL OF FLAGS AT W&L

 RALLY PLANNED IN LEXINGTON       
Posted: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 
                
Washington and Lee University has desecrated Robert E. Lee’s grave, but can remedy its error by restoring the Confederate battle flags and separating the chapel from university politics, the commander of the local Sons of Confederate Veterans said.
 
The Lexington-based Stonewall Brigade plans Saturday to battle the removal of replica flags from Lee Chapel with a downtown flag vigil starting at noon. That will be followed by an open forum at 4 p.m. at the Holiday Inn Express to discuss how to respond to what it terms "grave robbery." "We feel that what they did is a desecration of Robert E. Lee’s memorial and gravesite," said commander Brandon Dorsey. "It is borderline illegal, and the flags should be returned. No military servicemen should have the flags for which they fought removed from their gravesite."

W&L declined to respond to the allegations. "We don’t wish to get into any back-and-forth; so consistent with our position all along, we are allowing President [Kenneth] Ruscio’s detailed statements to speak for themselves," said Brian Eckert, executive director of communications.
Ruscio earlier this month issued a lengthy statement explaining that the replica flags were not presented in an educational manner, which would be in keeping with the university’s mission, and has fielded some questions in an online response. The removal was in response to one of the concerns raised by a group of W&L law school students who said the flags glorified the Confederacy and were offensive and hurtful to minority students.

In explaining his decision, Ruscio wrote, "The reproductions are not genuinely historic, nor are they displayed with any information or background about what they are. The absence of such explanation allows those who either ‘oppose’ or ‘support’ them to assert their own subjective and frequently incorrect interpretations."

Instead, original flags on loan from the American Civil War Museum in Richmond will be displayed on a rotating basis in the Lee Chapel Museum.

Dorsey called Ruscio’s explanation "bogus," and said the university in accepting the memorial had an obligation to preserve it as intended."By their own admission, Robert E. Lee does not belong exclusively to them. His legacy goes beyond the doors and windows of Washington and Lee," Dorsey said.

Lee became president of then Washington College following the Civil War. At his request, the university began construction in 1867 on what would come to be called Lee Chapel. His office was housed on the lower level, and when he died in 1870, his body was buried beneath the chapel and his office mostly preserved.

The following year, the Virginia legislature incorporated The Lee Memorial Association to build a monument to his memory. After the school changed its named to Washington and Lee University, the association worked with the university to design the monument. A mausoleum was attached to the chapel "where his remains should be deposited in a vault, to be surmounted by a recumbent figure in marble, representing our great chieftain at rest — it being part of the plan to provide vaults also in the same Mausoleum for the immediate members of his family," former Gen. Jubal Early said during the June 28, 1883 inauguration of the mausoleum.

Dorsey said that in removing the battle flags, Washington and Lee may have violated state law by desecrating a memorial for a war veteran. He called for the flags to be returned. W&L maintains that the reproductions were hung near The Recumbent Lee statue that people often mistake for his tomb. The statue depicts Lee sleeping on a battlefield. His remains are buried in a crypt on the lower level of the chapel, along with his family. And his horse, Traveller, is buried outside.

Dorsey maintains, "At this point, the best scenario is for Washington & Lee to place it [the memorial] in a separate nonprofit entity and make the chapel separate." That way, he said, the university would no longer be burdened with dealing with Lee Chapel and any embarrassment it causes students.
"Our chief concern is primarily seeing that Robert E. Lee’s gravesite and memorial are maintained in the manner they were originally conceived to be," Dorsey said, adding the politics of donors, faculty and students should not influence the memorial.

The Stonewall Brigade announced its plans for Saturday’s rally last week in an advertisement in the News-Gazette. Dorsey said he anticipates W&L alumni will come but that the administration was not invited nor expected. He said his group was rebuked in the spring when it contacted the university after the law students’ demands were made public.

"We’re so diametrically opposed. We don’t think there is any hope for dialogues," he said. "We wanted the university to allow public debate. We wanted historical experts to talk about the relevance of Lee in this era. It was a flat rejection."

The Stonewall Brigade earlier this year surrendered its legal challenge against Lexington when it was unable to afford to continue an appeal of the city’s ban on the flying of nongovernmental flags from its poles. Members can and do carry the flag on city streets, primarily during the celebration of      Lee-Jackson Day.

At least one flag-bearing vigilante has been noted since Ruscio’s announcement. "I have observed a man carrying a large Confederate flag on the public sidewalks adjacent to campus. Other university employees tell me he has simply greeted passersby. The Office of Admission tells me that no one has been following tours on campus," Eckert said.

Ruscio’s statement has drawn a number of letters to the editors, op-eds and online comments in The Roanoke Times and in other newspapers, and to Eckert’s office. Ruscio, in his earlier statement, anticipated an on going dialogue concerning the university and its history and relationship to African-Americans.

Dorsey said W&L has rebuffed his group’s voice.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/confederate-group-plans-rally-around-w-l-flags/article_a98c3d98-1210-11e4-8eac-001a4bcf6878.html

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

THE RIGHT TO SECEDE

How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore.
 


Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.
 
Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.
 


The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.
 


Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.
 
Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)
 


Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”
 
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.
 
Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.
 
Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”
 
As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.
 
By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.
 
Books mentioned in this essay may be found in the Imaginative Conservative BookstoreCopyright (c) Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, www.fgfBooks.com. Reprinted with permission.
 
 

DECISION TO REMOVE FLAGS FROM LEE CHAPEL DISAPPOINTING

Heatwole: W&L flag decision is disappointing

1 image STEPHANIE KLEIN-DAVIS | The Roanoke Times/ Washington and Lee University officials say Robert E. Lee was instrumental in keeping the school alive in the years following the Civil War.
 
 
I read with dismay of Washington and Lee’s decision to remove the Confederate flags from Lee Chapel in the July 9 edition of The Roanoke Times. This is a disappointing decision that effectively damages the historical significance and educational value of the chapel display.
 
When I attended W&L, I had a brilliant history professor, Dr. Jenks, who could take complex events in history, paint a picture of the various forces that created the complexity and fully describe the characters in the pivotal roles. His lectures were invaluable to understanding history and how to learn from it.
 
When you enter Lee Chapel, Lee’s statue and the battle flags paint the same kind of awe-inspiring picture of history as one of Dr. Jenks’ lectures. There before you: the father of the honor code but also the battle flags he fought for, with all their varied connotations. The flags not only represented the South’s struggle for states’ rights — an honorable struggle, as the South saw it — but also the defense of the odious institution of slavery. A lesson in history displayed for all to contemplate.
My time at W&L in the late ’60s was a time of student protest against war. My class was also the first at W&L to include black students. We absolutely understood the dichotomy of those flags. The display in the chapel of both Lee in repose and the Confederate flags taught just how complex his times were — the paradox of an honorable man whose wartime involvement supported a dishonorable institution.

Vietnam also split the nation. The chapel display reminded us that men of honor who came before us also had to face the judgment of history as best they could.
 
Now the flags will be removed. They will be relegated to the museum downstairs, where they will not offend the delicate sensibilities of the incoming freshmen students. Henceforth, the picture of history in the chapel will be incomplete.
 
What is most distressing is the contradictory and illogical rationale for removing the flags. President Kenneth Ruscio states that “the purpose of historic flags in a university setting is to educate.” Correct! Then he contradicts himself by saying they cannot educate because they are displayed without information or background about what they are. Does he think his students are ignorant of the Civil War? Are not the flags themselves information and background enough? His explanation is pure weaseling.
 
Ruscio also says the reproduction flags are not historic and therefore should be removed. He adds that he will borrow authentic flags from the American Civil War Museum in Richmond for display. According to his own reasoning, the authentic flags should be displayed in the chapel. But alas, they will be displayed in the museum. Does he not see the obvious contradiction?
 
“The Committee” demands the flags’ removal, averring they are an offensive presence during the honor code ceremony. If so, how much more offensive must be Lee lying there in the full uniform of a general in the Army of the Confederacy? Logic dictates Lee’s statue also must be an offense and therefore it should also be removed from the chapel. Follow this to its logical conclusion, and you end up with the newly named Washington University at Lexington.
 
Finally, contemplate this potential scenario. A group of eager law students in 2064 forms a “Committee” to petition for the return of the Confederate flags to Lee Chapel. “The Committee” insists the removal of the flags effectively disassociated Lee from a powerful symbol of slavery and therefore has whitewashed his image. They demand Lee be remembered for his involvement in the defense of slavery. The flags must be returned to the chapel immediately or protests will commence.Makes you want to tear your hair out, doesn’t it?
 
All of this lunacy is on parade when people try to co-opt history and manipulate it for their political cause du jour. “The Committee” takes positions that are absolutely illogical, and President Ruscio makes himself look silly bowing to political correctness while trying not to irritate influential constituencies. If it weren’t so sad, you would have to laugh.
 
History should be inviolable. The good, bad and ugly parts of history teach us how to live our lives today. It does a grave disservice to all of us to hide controversial historic images to satisfy some present-day political fad. In fact, it ends up making everyone involved look stupid.

http://m.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/heatwole-w-l-flag-decision-is-disappointing/article_3084d528-4003-535e-b2dd-6bd9d515e80f.html?mode=jqm#.U8wpPA3mi0g.facebook
 

COURT RIGHT TO UPHOLD CONFEDERATE PLATES IN TEXAS

Why court was right on Confederate Veterans license plate
121
7
0
11
AA

 
This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate.
 
A request by the Sons of Confederate Veterans to honor their forefathers’ service with a Texas license plate is a simple fund-raising effort by a historical association with generations of civic involvement.

Race-baiting and politics, however, seem to play more of a role in the coverage of this issue than the actual facts. The 5th Circuit Court ruling supporting free speech and ending the state’s denial of their request is a win for common sense.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, a nonprofit established in 1896, is requesting to pay for a license plate displaying its logo and name. The logo contains the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, commonly known as the Confederate battle flag. The SCV would pay Texas $8,000 for the right to have a plate and recoup its costs with each plate sold.

I am a member of the SCV. My great-grandfather James Monroe Cole served in the Louisiana Infantry during the war, died in the Texas Confederate Veterans Home and is buried in the Texas State Cemetery in Austin.

As a statewide elected official, I sponsored the plate because of my commitment to Texas history — even the history others might find offensive. It’s the same reason I sponsored a license plate to honor the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum, another nonprofit interested in marketing its heritage with a license plate.

The Buffalo Soldiers, black troops deployed to the western frontier after the Civil War, served with great distinction, and many were recipients of the national Medal of Honor. But an examination of the Buffalo Soldiers’ actions could also be deemed insensitive and politically incorrect.

The Buffalo Soldiers were sent to Texas to implement a national policy of subjugation and enslavement of the Native American population, which is exactly what they did. They put into practice the national policy forcing Indians onto reservations to live essentially as prisoners of war.

Is this a history of which we should be proud? Should these soldiers be commemorated on a license plate? Of course they should. The Buffalo Soldiers license plate, just like the Confederate plate, is intended to honor soldiers who served with pride and dignity in defense of Texas.

Viewed through our 21st-century lens of political correctness, both the Buffalo and Confederate soldiers could be considered by some as having fought for a cause that fell short of the high moral ground. In the end, offensive behavior can be found throughout history if you’re looking to be offended.

There is no statutory protection against being offended. Actually, it’s the privilege of every American to be offended. But that shouldn’t interfere with our willingness to understand the past in its own context, not from our present perspective.

And for those who believe every Confederate soldier was fighting solely to perpetuate slavery, I’ll end with the quote of one of the greatest Americans of all time:

“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age,” wrote Robert E. Lee while stationed in Texas before the Civil War in 1856, “who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil . . . we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers.”

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson may be contacted through jpatterson@GLO.texas.gov.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20140717-why-court-was-right-on-confederate-veterans-license-plate.ece