Anthony Hervey, 49, had been well known for years around his
hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, as a supporter of the CBF. His support for
this well-publicized symbol of racism and hatred was to honor the memory
of the black soldiers who served in uniform for the Confederacy
during the American Civil War (ACW).
Granted, there weren't that many, but the fact is they did
exist. Whether they fought conscripted as slaves or as free blacks is moot
retrospective of the fact that they did serve, fight, and some died in service
to the flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA).
Hervey was among the few who appreciated this, and his
dedication to the memory of the fallen unfortunately seemed to earn him a death
sentence in the hysteria following the racially motivated church shooting in
South Carolina.
Just because one young wacko looked at the Confederate flag
as motivation to do what he did doesn't mean every white person in the South
sees the CBF in the same manner.
And in Hervey's case, certainly not everyone in the South
has a racist view of the battle flag, either.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans, an historical non-profit
organization honoring the Southern veterans of the ACW and their descendants,
has repeatedly defended the CBF being flown to show respect for the memory of
the hundreds of thousands of men who served, fought and died for the CSA during
the Civil War.
For these folks, and for Hervey, the CBF does not represent
something hateful. It is history, and like it or not, many honest, good,
hard-working Americans served in Confederate gray just as they did for Union
blue.
These men served, fought and died for a variety of reasons;
much of which had little or nothing to do with the preservation of the slavery
institution.
Many Southern soldiers fought simply because it was expected
of them. Going to war was a matter of honor, and of family pride, because their
fathers, sons, uncles, brothers, nephews, cousins and neighbors signed up, so
it was only right to sign up, too.
Others fought because they truly believed that their rights
and their land—the sum of earthly possessions which any poor Southern had in
this world—were being threatened. True or false, this motivated many poor
Southern whites to enlist. The last thing they wanted to see was a massive blue
army march across their fields, sack their farms, and seize all that they had.
And, let's be realistic: Most Southerners at the time were
poor, or at least what one might deem lower middle class in today's economy.
They even didn't own slaves, so the notion of fighting to keep slave
property was moot. In fact, only a quarter or less of Southern whites in
the CSA owned even a single slave.
I cannot find fault with the average soldier or sailor in
the Confederate military any more than I can find fault with the average German
enlistee that served his country during World War II. The average German
warrior wasn't behind the grievous war crimes that his government had
orchestrated. He was a soldier, a sailor, an airman who followed his orders and
did his duty.
Likewise, the average Confederate warrior wasn't trying to
proliferate the institution of slavery and spread racial hatred. He was a
soldier, a sailor who followed his orders and did his duty.
There has got to be a reasonable and honorable way to
respect their sacrifices and service for a country in which they enlisted to
defend.
Why is the CBF considered such an unreasonable and
irrational means of honoring the fighting man of the Confederacy during the ACW?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if we are going
to react in knee-jerk fashion over the detestable action of one maniac with a
gun by demanding that an entire symbol receive censorship, then we
logically need to look at whether or not censoring the American flag and
its precedents is appropriate.
More human atrocities in our nation's history have occurred
under the folds of the "Stars and Stripes" than anything ever done
under the auspices of the CBF. Just ask the Cherokee Nation, the Cheyennes,
the Sioux, and numerous other American Indian tribes who were starved into
submission, forced from their lands onto reservations, and often times killed
without much of a reason.
But we still honor the flag of the troopers who faithfully
carried out their orders at places like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.
How about the atrocities committed against native Filipinos
when the United States occupied The Phillipines Islands in 1903?
Or worse, how about America's own founding Constitution,
which legally sanctioned slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment was finally
ratified into law on December 6, 1865? This, by comparison, occurred nearly two
years after the United States declared slavery illegal in the Southern states
of the CSA. Slavery remained legal in states like Missouri, Kentucky, and
Maryland (the Border States) until December 1865. The war had been over for
over seven months before slavery was abolished throughout the country.
From the end of the American Revolution through the end of
the American Civil War, the United States of America kept slavery legal for
over eighty years.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, too,
right?
I mean, if we are going to argue that the CBF should be
censored because it is a symbol of racism and racial hatred, then can we not
make a similar parallel to the United States flag?
I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't support
censoring any political flag of our nation's history, because it is history.
Our country, and its states, have made mistakes over the years. And, they have
taken steps to correct those mistakes and improve the condition of their
people.
Is it too much to ask that we finally forgive the South for
its wrongs? Is it too much to ask that we look at the bigger picture and what
has been done right since then?
I am so sick of this idiotic and shallow notion that
censoring a flag is going to make people feel better about what happened in
South Carolina. It's not. All it seems to do is make people feel worse, and
cause more tension between one another.
When I read the story about Anthony Hervey, I was glad to
know that someone and something had the courage to print the story and present
a different side than what we have been barraged with over the past month by
the mainstream press.
It is maddening that the only places I read about
Hervey is on more obscure news web sites. None of the mainstream broadcast or
print media seems particularly interested in really investigating this story.
Oh, they gave Hervey’s death some attention, but there has been nothing
in-depth or investigative like their stories about why the Confederate flag is
offensive. There have been no stories and no commentary asking whether or not
Hervey had a point in his defense of the CBF, and whether or not mainstream
public reaction might have gotten a little too extreme.
Unfortunately, the mainstream press has as much of an agenda
as the politicians calling for an end to the CBF. Stories that pit people
against each other sell papers, air time, and space. And stories that tend to
fan the flames of anger sell big, too.
Stories that quench the fires of rage don't sell well.
Stories that make us pause from our yelling and screaming aren't popular,
either. Only stories that feed our appetites for hate seem to get the most
attention in the news.
That perhaps is the ultimate irony in this case.
