This is all a good tribute. I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley and I have complicated feelings about it. The Confederate flag is a good part of why. It’s a beautiful area and it was a good place to grow up. But I hated seeing that flag every day and I have always hated the nostalgia for traitors who took up arms against the United States.
Shenandoah and the blue ridge mountains have long been our go-to weekend getaway. You captured the beautiful contradictions wonderfully. Glad you're exploring the area!
Luray is also one of those last vestiges of a true American Tradition: the teenager summer job. If you go in the summertime, your tour guides are all teenagers, spending the hot humid summer days in the cool caves, eagerly telling people scientific facts and reminding them to stay on the path and not spending hours scrolling a screen, and honestly that is one of my favorite parts about it. (thanks for your travelogs!)
Perhaps a history lesson is in order. The battle flag was not the flag of a slave state. It was a battle flag for an army that did not come into existence until Lincoln declared in his inaugural address (before the firing on Sumter) that he was going to invade the South "to collect his revenue." The South wished merely to withdraw from the Union, and the reasons for that had nothing to do with slavery. Had it been over slavery, the South would have accepted the North's offer of the Crittenden Compromise, which would have permanently ensconced slavery into the US Constitution. Instead, the South declined. Permanent slavery wasn't what the South wanted (more on that later, in the tariff discussion). The South had long since outlawed the importation of slaves, but the North had not, and in fact the importation of slaves was such big business in New York City that the mayor of NYC threatened to secede in early 1861. Six slave states sent men to fight for the North. In actual fact, the US flag was the flag of all slave states, until secession. And what is secession, except what the Founders declared on July 4, 1776?? As Charles Dickens so cogently pointed out, a country founded on secession cannot deny the right of secession without that nation being considered the height of hypocrisy.
If you believe in the Constitution, you should not abhor the Confederate flag. It is a symbol of states' rights, and a statement that the federal govt should never again turn the weapons of war on its own people. (Yes, I'm aware of the neo-Nazi usurping that symbolism, but that fact doesn't negate what it stands for to the people of Shenandoah.) People in Minnesota are, right now, discovering the power of states' rights, and indeed the framers never intended the behemoth federal govt. that we have today. That flag does not represent nostalgia for slavery - which, btw, did not end in any northern state until the 13th amendment was passed in late 1865. It instead represents a history that we are fighting to preserve - not because we want to celebrate the owning of human beings, but because we want to tell the truth, and that truth is being obliterated at a record pace by the Marxists who are now running states like Virginia. Lee is often the subject of hatred, and yet Robert E. Lee himself hated slavery, and argued in favor of its abolishing; his wife and mother in law were both abolitionists. He wrote in 1857 that slavery brought out the very worst in white men, and he felt that a policy of gradual emancipation, where blacks were taught basic reading and math, taught a trade, and perhaps given some land to make a good start, was advisable. Just imagine if we had done that, instead of freeing people suddenly, with them having no home to go to, no shelter, no food, no nothing. (Compare Lee's idea of emancipation with Lincoln's, who wanted to ship blacks out of the United States b/c he didn't want to live with them.) Sudden emancipation was not very kind to the ex-slaves, and absent from your tale above is any mention of the many, many testimonies of ex slaves of the love that existed between them and their masters, love that carried through multiple generations, with families that were devoted to one another in multiple ways. One diary I read discussed how an elderly black man begged his mistress to keep him on after the war; that land was his family's land, too. They had lived and died on it for four generations, and he was desperate not to leave it. But the law said he had to be turned out, despite his age and infirmity. He wept before her, but she could do nothing, or she herself would be in violation of the law. Just one more instance of the unintended consequences of laws that were supposed to do good.
None of this, of course, makes the owning of human beings "okay," but it's a fact that cruelty was not the general rule; it was the exception, and any perusal of agricultural journals of the period would show that cruelty was advised against, over and over again, as a poor way to manage human beings and likely to engender resentment and retaliation. Jefferson Davis, on his plantation, had a separate justice system for slaves whereby any slave who committed a wrong was judged and sentenced by his/her peers, not by his/her white owner. Slavery at the time was a worldwide condition, and these were people of their time who did not invent slavery, which had existed for hundreds of years, but were born into that world through no fault of their own. They should not be universally vilified.
To circle back to the idea of slavery as a cause of the war ... In 1863, after two years of war and after the Emancipation Proclamation (which was a war tactic and had no real legal effect), Lincoln accepted West Virginia into the Union as a slave state. So it can hardly be claimed that the war was fought over slavery. That idea came into being after a US attorney general refused to prosecute Jefferson Davis on the grounds that if a trial was held, the entire world would learn that the US had perpetrated an illegal war on the its own people, and the US govt would face the ire of hundreds of thousands of wives, sisters, and children who had lost beloved husbands, brothers, and fathers. At that point the US govt then required that all Southern schools teach the "the war was about slavery" narrative in order to receive federal monies. Funny how that works.
The Shenandoah Valley was particularly targeted by Union troops during the War. Lincoln, in defiance of the Geneva Convention, which he had previously agreed to, ordered the army to target civilians. The resultant violence perpetrated on the Valley's citizens was unprecedented in our history: Women were gang raped, often murdered, their animals butchered and left senselessly, their homes burned. The atrocities have been documented in books like "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians" and "Blood in the Ozarks." If you read the first one, you'll understand a bit more about why people in the Shenandoah Valley might want to fly a Confederate flag.
If people in the Valley want to remember their ancestors, who lived through years of horror perpetrated on citizens, including Amish and Mennonites (who were abstainers from both sides, and at the beginning of the war both sides had agreed to leave them alone, but the Union army shot and killed many of them), then let them. And let the history be told. If you try to silence the flags, then what else will you silence? Where does the slippery slope end? The entire story needs to be told, not just one side of it.
For the fact is, the war was fought over money and power, as all wars are; the South paid about 80% of the costs of running the federal govt., via tariffs levied on it by the North-controlled Congress, and Lincoln wanted to double that tariff (ie, the Morrill Tariff), while sending most of the money to develop industries in the North. This had been going on for decades, with the North-dominated Congress continually appropriating Southern funds to Northern states. Because of his support for the Morrill Tariff, Lincoln had so little support in the South that his name did not appear on the ballot in a single Southern state. So it's no wonder the South looked on with horror at Lincoln's election, knowing that it meant even more economic hardship for one section of the nation while the other section profited handsomely from it. And so they politely seceded. There did not have to be a war. Lincoln was the one who did that - and don't talk about the firing at Sumter unless you understand why the South suddenly fired on a fort after weeks of its occupation. There did not even have to be a war to free the slaves; other nations had done it via a system of compensation, and economic studies have proven that the US had sufficient funds to do that - but Lincoln chose war b/c he wanted to strengthen the central federal govt and teach the states a lesson. They were not going to withhold his monies, not without bloodshed. And that's exactly what he told them in his inaugural address.
So. Let the flags fly, because if the flags are silenced, then a huge section of history is silenced. And that's the real tragedy. Because really, the only difference between the Fathers of the Revolutionary War, and the Confederacy, is that the Confederacy lost - and you know what they say: The victor tells the tale, and most of the time that tale is not entirely the truth.
The Confederate battle flag was created for an army formed to defend a slaveholding order, and the seceding states said so plainly in their own declarations. Rebranding it as a neutral symbol of “states’ rights” requires ignoring those primary sources and flattening the lived reality of chattel slavery. When a symbol’s origin and stated purpose are set aside in favour of nostalgic myth, that isn’t heritage—it’s historical illiteracy.
In 1861, ‘states’ rights’ meant the right of states to preserve a legal system in which human beings were property. A political movement built on denying individual liberty to millions cannot plausibly claim to be a pure defence of individual rights. That contradiction is written into the Confederacy’s own founding documents.
Nice demonstration of where and when you attended high school. Please share for the class (a) which Article of the 1864 Convention addresses the treatment of civilians and (b) on exactly what date did the United States sign?
If the flag is truly about state rights it wouldn't feature so prominently amongst those who are currently bootlicking for ICE and vehemently opposed to the concept of sanctuary cities.
First, the seceding states themselves were explicit about their reasons for leaving the Union. Mississippi wrote that its “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery,” and Georgia listed “numerous and serious causes of complaint…with reference to the subject of African slavery.” Historians have confirmed that all four states issuing “Declarations of Causes” centered their justification on slavery, and the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected the “right of property in negro slaves.
Regarding the Crittenden Compromise, the historical record shows the South rejected it not because they opposed permanent slavery, but because it did not guarantee the federal protection of slavery in all territories - a core Southern demand at the time. Republicans opposed it for the opposite reason: it expanded slavery.
On the tariff question, historians consistently find that tariffs were a secondary political issue, far behind slavery in driving sectional conflict. The Morrill Tariff was enacted after Southern senators had already left Congress, intended largely to raise revenue, and replaced historically low pre‑war rates averaging about 17%.
Concerning the Confederate battle flag, its modern symbolism cannot be separated from its history. While originally a military banner, it later became associated with Lost Cause ideology and was “implicitly connected to white supremacy” as it entered public life in the 20th century. Secession documents make clear that “states’ rights” referred specifically to the right to own slaves.
As for Robert E. Lee, his own letters describe slavery as a “moral & political evil,” but he also defended it as necessary and imposed harsher discipline on enslaved laborers under his control. He condoned whipping and enforced the full five-year period of bondage stipulated in the Custis will. Many enslaved people fled to Union lines when given the opportunity, which contradicts claims that affection defined those relationships.
Well, you've cherry picked your facts, but here's a brief reply to a few of them. Lee did not condone whipping - he punished men under him for even whipping an animal, and he never whipped a human being, false stories (published by abolitionist tabloids) to the contrary. The story you've likely heard was one of those published in a tabloid, and the brother of the woman who was supposedly involved said that it never happened, nor were any eyewitnesses ever found to corroborate that story. Lee also did not "enforce the full five year period of bondage" - he actually released the slaves earlier than the full 5 years, but the stipulation in the Custis will was that the slaves were to be freed AFTER all of the estate's debts were paid (these had to be paid with proceeds from agriculture) OR at 5 years, whichever came first. Lee was required by law to pay off the debts first. He did not act out of vengeance or whatever it is you think. Never mind that the war itself hampered the efforts to grow crops and pay off debts.
The problem with many of your arguments is that you seem to believe that only one thing can be true, when in fact it's entirely possible for two things to be true at once. For instance: Some slaves had bad masters and they fled to Union lines, but other slaves stayed with their masters out of loyalty and love. Some slaves fought in the Union Army (where they faced the same prejudice they faced in the South, btw) and many fought in the Confederate Army, and this has been widely documented. Don't insult people by suggesting that they only served as cooks and servants. They were armed, and there are many photographs. Some were taken prisoner and served in prison camps like Camp Chase and Point Lookout - this, too, is documented.
The Morrill Tariff was one of the platforms of the Republican Party, and Lincoln ran on passing and enforcing it. So the threat of the tariff was quite real long before it was passed, and the South knew that it would pass b/c the North controlled Congress. To suggest that the Morrill Tariff wasn't an issue until after it was passed is ridiculous.
When you say "historians found that tariffs were a secondary issue," I suggest you instead not look at historians but at primary source material - the diaries of those who were affected by tariffs, the debates that took place at the state level, etc. Every person in the South was affected by the tariffs, b/c they drove up costs of necessary goods. The tariffs were also the reason that all infrastructure in the South had to be privately financed - the South's money was all going to build textile factories and railroads in the North. The tariffs were the primary reason that most plantation owners were in horrific debt, with multiple mortgages. I suggest you read "Clash of Extremes," a detailed economic analysis of the causes of the War, to understand more.
There is no way you can honestly say the war was fought by the South to preserve slavery, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia - a slave state - and asked to join the North as a separate SLAVE STATE. And indeed it was accepted into the Union, after the Emancipation Proclamation, AS A SLAVE STATE. If the war was fought over slavery, why did 6 slave states send men to fight for the North? What was the rationale for those states? If slavery was the primary reason for secession, then why didn't all slave states secede? The most complete analysis of why men fought was done by Gary Gallagher, and he showed conclusively, upon examining all of the evidence, that Southern men fought for independence and to establish a new nation. And if the speeches are taken in toto, it's clear the purpose was to establish a more limited govt than what the US govt was morphing into, where one section was imposing its will on another. It's also ludicrous to suggest that those men, 95% of whom were not slave owners, fought to preserve a system that they lived outside of. They fought because Lincoln's army stepped across the Virginia border and invaded the South. But the roots of the conflict have much to do with the fact that the North had essentially extorted the South for more than two decades, and with the North controlling all of Congress and the presidency, it was clear to most people in the South that they would continue to be impoverished by taxes (another word for tariffs) if they remained in the Union. A cursory examination of history will show that all wars are fought over power and money - but often the claimed rationale is some moral good - and it's generally hogwash. In the case of the WBTS, Lincoln expressly stated in his inauguration address that he would invade the South "to collect my revenue." In other words, he wanted the South's money. He didn't care about the slaves.
Since you mention ICE and sanctuary cities ... how the flag is used in the current day has nothing whatsoever to do with its historical significance or historical truth, and no one has any power over how it is used. But I know pretty well, being a Virginian myself, how people in the Valley use it and what it means to them. Do some reading about the atrocities committed in the Valley before you suggest otherwise.
Nothing you say about Minnesota has relevance to Virginia, but what's hilarious is that you're actually complaining that the people who are in favor of upholding the law are flying the Confederate flag. Sanctuary cities are not lawful. The concept itself is not lawful. "No one is above the law," and that includes people who walk across our border illegally and commit crimes. ICE has been focusing predominantly on illegals who have committed violent crimes. In sanctuary cities, such people often walk free after committing violent crimes, something that not only isn't lawful but isn't serving the cause of justice for victims. If cities or states want to be "sanctuaries," let them secede. I welcome it. Let them establish their own nations and treat their citizens however they wish. The right of self-determination is absolute. But the problem with your argument is that somehow you're suggesting that in 1861 people who disagreed with the federal govt had no right to do so, but in 2026, those people are heroes. You can't have it both ways. Just remember that in 1861, slavery was legal at the federal level, and the fight over extending it into territories had much less to do with humanitarian concerns and far more to do with who would hold political power in Congress if it was extended. The South's stance was actually far more in line with the concept of self-determination and democracy than the North's. The South didn't say all territories had to be slave territories; it said the citizens that settled there should decide the question for themselves, and it should not be decided by people in Washington who didn't live there. The North didn't argue that slavery shouldn't be extended b/c it was cruel; they simply didn't want more slave states voting in concert with the South.
It's also important to remember that prejudice and severe bigotry existed even in states where blacks were "free." You need only look at Illinois as an example. Slavery was outlawed, yes indeed, but the state also passed "black laws," which forbade any black person from living in Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, while a state senator, voted in favor of those laws, and indeed said quite famously that he favored white people over black ones, and did not want to live with black people. Massachusetts is another state where blacks were forbidden to go to public venues such as theaters, and often were forbidden from living in certain cities or towns, and if they shopped there, they had to be out by sundown. If you'd like to learn more about slavery and black laws in northern states, I suggest slavenorth.com as a starting point.
We should never, ever support censorship in any form. I don't care whether it's the Confederate flag or social media posts. The truth matters, and the truth is far more nuanced than you seem to think, or than historians want you to believe (remember, too, that historians who are trying to make a name for themselves often have an agenda). If we don't learn the entire truth, we will make the same mistakes - and right now, if you know anything about the 1850s, we are hurtling toward another civil war at breakneck speed. Rational minds (not the shrill harpies yelling "F*** ICE!") and people who understand history are the only hope for avoiding it.
As with most of history, Oliver, it is very much more nuanced than it might seem. The American Civil War, certainly falls in that category. As, likely does the English Civil about which I think I have known something, but have long suspected not enough to make hard judgements on who or what was really right.
In the case of the American CW: it was not at all about slavery, but about federal power and money. One of the intended consequences of the war, on the part of the Federal government, was to create a country in which ceding is illegal/impossible. It was a momentous act of government centralization, despite the intent of the Constitution.
We have been taught it was about freeing the slaves in the schools for at least 100 years(probably), but I am old enough to recall some of our school texts that let the truth slip through—not directly, but via innuendo.
I did not put it together until I spent a few intense few days in some southern CW museums…Atlanta’s being the best. My taught perspective on the war evaporated on the spot and my understanding has since been affirmed in further reading and consideration.
I agree, let the flags fly. If for no other reason than to mark an era of our history that we may or may not be proud of… but are, at least, being honest about. There could be another reason, though… that of remembering Constitutionally guaranteed State’s Rights, before all of them completely disappear, as did the right to cede from the Union.
If secession wasn't about slavery then why do most of the secession declarations of the seceding states (source documents) declare the potential loss of slavery as their cause right near the top of the list? By way of reference let me quote the FIRST two sentences of Georgia's secession document "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
I’m old; I don’t remember seeing Confederate flags (certainly not in any number) on a week long visit to the Shenandoah Valley sometime around 1970. Is this a sign of contemporary political protest based on an ahistorical, romanticized past? On a visit to Decatur Alabama several years ago there were vastly more Confederate flags than would have been the case, say 25 years ago. Many were of the Indian head type, again presumably indicating a rebellious spirit toward the status quo.
We used to head south every Easter in the sixties/seventies/early eighties. When I visited more recently I was astounded to see the number of Confederate flags flying. It was far different from my previous trips.
Henry, I am glad you are enjoying your trips into the countryside. They will be instructive in many ways.
A friend who works at Gettysburg told me decades ago that, when the national park was being set up, it was the Confederate veterans who requested that the battle flag not be part of any display. "That war is over" was the unanimous feeling. It wasn't until the anti-Civil Rights backlash of the 1950s and 1960s that the flag reappeared as part of several State flags, as well as flying throughout the South & elsewhere.
Pairs of gas stations and pairs of churches? Or church/gas station pairs? I suspect, based on Harold Hotelling, the former. And a difference between the callow communists and the Confederate flag wavers is that, in my experience, most of the former are convinced that communism didn't really cause those deaths while the latter do understand that slavery was real but it's not enough to upset them. Until fairly recently, I'd have said that makes the red bridges possibly more dangerous, but definitely more pleasant to be around than the Dukes of Hazzard, the Dukes being inevitably too small in number to be more than locally destructive. I'm no longer convinced of that now.
I also suspect that most of the callow Communists grew out of it within a year - that it was more a fashion statement, or at best a statement of ‘I am against American capitalism’ than ‘I have read “Das Kapital” and “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder”’.
Attending a meeting organised by the University Communist society is usually a good cure for most.
At a hunch, I would say the ones who take it seriously are far less likely to indulge in Soviet chic.
[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . .
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
"It cannot be sensible to make the Confederate flag illegal today, but I am one who thinks the victorious Union should have crushed it into the dust of history." Well said.
The SUPERMAJORITY PLAN TO IMPEACH TRUMP and HIS ADMINISTRATION
It will take 292 house and 67 senate votes to obtain a supermajority vote. This is the key to accomplishing anything in the house or senate. The house and senate will be able to impeach Trump and his administration for their crimes and corruption.
The Democrats are the only ones that will stand against Trump. We have to vote out as many republicans as possible.
EVERYONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE NOVEMBER 3RD MIDTERM ELECTIONS TO MAKE THIS WORK
Make sure you share this with everyone you know without social media. People without social media are unaware how corrupt and detrimental Trump’s administration really is for our country. The media outlets do not post anything negative about Trump. Some people don’t even know what the midterm elections are or how important they are.
TRUMP, HIS ADMINISTRATION, HIS BILLIONAIRE PEDOPHILE NETWORK , AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE WORKING CLASS TO SURVIVE.
“ Shenandoah is the sort of place where nothing is modern.”
An awful lot of the US is like that. Shenandoah has some great natural beauty, but I don’t think that it is all that unique otherwise. The same kind of things can be said for a whole swathe of the country running from non-coastal New England, west towards the Great Lakes, and southwest all the way towards the river towns of the Mississippi. The economic and population growth boom times for most of those places are generations in the past, so most everything is old and aging.
"I am one who thinks the victorious Union should have crushed it into the dust of history."
My amateur understanding/guess is that the Union actually tried too hard to "crush" the confederacy and the persistence of the flag is multigenerational backlash. I think the GDR was probably much harsher on ex-Nazis and the population in general and that's where we see the most neo-Nazis now. To actually make bad ideas disappear, you need to give people off-ramps.
My understanding (which could be wrong) was that Reconstruction lasted about as long as Federal troops remained in the South. But occupying a foreign country is expensive and a pain in the *ss if you don’t have the local elites on board to do the actual day to day grunt work of governing a place. And the local elites in the South were not onboard with political and legal equality for former slaves, and often enough they also weren’t alright with political equality with poor whites either. I think most people outside the South understood the objectives of the war to be about some combination of preserving the Union and ending Slavery. I don’t think that they cared much about political and civil rights for blacks; my recollection is that if you read Lincoln’s speeches he frequently says things that sound as if they are an attempt to reassure racists that the Republican Party does not support civil rights for blacks, but rather only the end of slavery. Anyway, the point is that people outside the South were not convinced that an indefinite occupation was worthwhile, as they were never convinced of the importance of political and civil rights for blacks, so support for the occupation crumbled pretty quickly, and the withdrawal of Federal troops allowed the local elites to reassert their control.
US Civil War back then, English Civil War back then. Always worthwhile to drill down on confederate flag since it is still around. Many think we are in a current civil war, hence there are many types of flags flying. Upside down USA flag flying in Minneapolis, very contentious times…
This is all a good tribute. I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley and I have complicated feelings about it. The Confederate flag is a good part of why. It’s a beautiful area and it was a good place to grow up. But I hated seeing that flag every day and I have always hated the nostalgia for traitors who took up arms against the United States.
Shenandoah and the blue ridge mountains have long been our go-to weekend getaway. You captured the beautiful contradictions wonderfully. Glad you're exploring the area!
That is one hell of a slice of life. Beautiful stalactites too.
Luray is also one of those last vestiges of a true American Tradition: the teenager summer job. If you go in the summertime, your tour guides are all teenagers, spending the hot humid summer days in the cool caves, eagerly telling people scientific facts and reminding them to stay on the path and not spending hours scrolling a screen, and honestly that is one of my favorite parts about it. (thanks for your travelogs!)
Perhaps a history lesson is in order. The battle flag was not the flag of a slave state. It was a battle flag for an army that did not come into existence until Lincoln declared in his inaugural address (before the firing on Sumter) that he was going to invade the South "to collect his revenue." The South wished merely to withdraw from the Union, and the reasons for that had nothing to do with slavery. Had it been over slavery, the South would have accepted the North's offer of the Crittenden Compromise, which would have permanently ensconced slavery into the US Constitution. Instead, the South declined. Permanent slavery wasn't what the South wanted (more on that later, in the tariff discussion). The South had long since outlawed the importation of slaves, but the North had not, and in fact the importation of slaves was such big business in New York City that the mayor of NYC threatened to secede in early 1861. Six slave states sent men to fight for the North. In actual fact, the US flag was the flag of all slave states, until secession. And what is secession, except what the Founders declared on July 4, 1776?? As Charles Dickens so cogently pointed out, a country founded on secession cannot deny the right of secession without that nation being considered the height of hypocrisy.
If you believe in the Constitution, you should not abhor the Confederate flag. It is a symbol of states' rights, and a statement that the federal govt should never again turn the weapons of war on its own people. (Yes, I'm aware of the neo-Nazi usurping that symbolism, but that fact doesn't negate what it stands for to the people of Shenandoah.) People in Minnesota are, right now, discovering the power of states' rights, and indeed the framers never intended the behemoth federal govt. that we have today. That flag does not represent nostalgia for slavery - which, btw, did not end in any northern state until the 13th amendment was passed in late 1865. It instead represents a history that we are fighting to preserve - not because we want to celebrate the owning of human beings, but because we want to tell the truth, and that truth is being obliterated at a record pace by the Marxists who are now running states like Virginia. Lee is often the subject of hatred, and yet Robert E. Lee himself hated slavery, and argued in favor of its abolishing; his wife and mother in law were both abolitionists. He wrote in 1857 that slavery brought out the very worst in white men, and he felt that a policy of gradual emancipation, where blacks were taught basic reading and math, taught a trade, and perhaps given some land to make a good start, was advisable. Just imagine if we had done that, instead of freeing people suddenly, with them having no home to go to, no shelter, no food, no nothing. (Compare Lee's idea of emancipation with Lincoln's, who wanted to ship blacks out of the United States b/c he didn't want to live with them.) Sudden emancipation was not very kind to the ex-slaves, and absent from your tale above is any mention of the many, many testimonies of ex slaves of the love that existed between them and their masters, love that carried through multiple generations, with families that were devoted to one another in multiple ways. One diary I read discussed how an elderly black man begged his mistress to keep him on after the war; that land was his family's land, too. They had lived and died on it for four generations, and he was desperate not to leave it. But the law said he had to be turned out, despite his age and infirmity. He wept before her, but she could do nothing, or she herself would be in violation of the law. Just one more instance of the unintended consequences of laws that were supposed to do good.
None of this, of course, makes the owning of human beings "okay," but it's a fact that cruelty was not the general rule; it was the exception, and any perusal of agricultural journals of the period would show that cruelty was advised against, over and over again, as a poor way to manage human beings and likely to engender resentment and retaliation. Jefferson Davis, on his plantation, had a separate justice system for slaves whereby any slave who committed a wrong was judged and sentenced by his/her peers, not by his/her white owner. Slavery at the time was a worldwide condition, and these were people of their time who did not invent slavery, which had existed for hundreds of years, but were born into that world through no fault of their own. They should not be universally vilified.
To circle back to the idea of slavery as a cause of the war ... In 1863, after two years of war and after the Emancipation Proclamation (which was a war tactic and had no real legal effect), Lincoln accepted West Virginia into the Union as a slave state. So it can hardly be claimed that the war was fought over slavery. That idea came into being after a US attorney general refused to prosecute Jefferson Davis on the grounds that if a trial was held, the entire world would learn that the US had perpetrated an illegal war on the its own people, and the US govt would face the ire of hundreds of thousands of wives, sisters, and children who had lost beloved husbands, brothers, and fathers. At that point the US govt then required that all Southern schools teach the "the war was about slavery" narrative in order to receive federal monies. Funny how that works.
The Shenandoah Valley was particularly targeted by Union troops during the War. Lincoln, in defiance of the Geneva Convention, which he had previously agreed to, ordered the army to target civilians. The resultant violence perpetrated on the Valley's citizens was unprecedented in our history: Women were gang raped, often murdered, their animals butchered and left senselessly, their homes burned. The atrocities have been documented in books like "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians" and "Blood in the Ozarks." If you read the first one, you'll understand a bit more about why people in the Shenandoah Valley might want to fly a Confederate flag.
If people in the Valley want to remember their ancestors, who lived through years of horror perpetrated on citizens, including Amish and Mennonites (who were abstainers from both sides, and at the beginning of the war both sides had agreed to leave them alone, but the Union army shot and killed many of them), then let them. And let the history be told. If you try to silence the flags, then what else will you silence? Where does the slippery slope end? The entire story needs to be told, not just one side of it.
For the fact is, the war was fought over money and power, as all wars are; the South paid about 80% of the costs of running the federal govt., via tariffs levied on it by the North-controlled Congress, and Lincoln wanted to double that tariff (ie, the Morrill Tariff), while sending most of the money to develop industries in the North. This had been going on for decades, with the North-dominated Congress continually appropriating Southern funds to Northern states. Because of his support for the Morrill Tariff, Lincoln had so little support in the South that his name did not appear on the ballot in a single Southern state. So it's no wonder the South looked on with horror at Lincoln's election, knowing that it meant even more economic hardship for one section of the nation while the other section profited handsomely from it. And so they politely seceded. There did not have to be a war. Lincoln was the one who did that - and don't talk about the firing at Sumter unless you understand why the South suddenly fired on a fort after weeks of its occupation. There did not even have to be a war to free the slaves; other nations had done it via a system of compensation, and economic studies have proven that the US had sufficient funds to do that - but Lincoln chose war b/c he wanted to strengthen the central federal govt and teach the states a lesson. They were not going to withhold his monies, not without bloodshed. And that's exactly what he told them in his inaugural address.
So. Let the flags fly, because if the flags are silenced, then a huge section of history is silenced. And that's the real tragedy. Because really, the only difference between the Fathers of the Revolutionary War, and the Confederacy, is that the Confederacy lost - and you know what they say: The victor tells the tale, and most of the time that tale is not entirely the truth.
The Confederate battle flag was created for an army formed to defend a slaveholding order, and the seceding states said so plainly in their own declarations. Rebranding it as a neutral symbol of “states’ rights” requires ignoring those primary sources and flattening the lived reality of chattel slavery. When a symbol’s origin and stated purpose are set aside in favour of nostalgic myth, that isn’t heritage—it’s historical illiteracy.
In 1861, ‘states’ rights’ meant the right of states to preserve a legal system in which human beings were property. A political movement built on denying individual liberty to millions cannot plausibly claim to be a pure defence of individual rights. That contradiction is written into the Confederacy’s own founding documents.
Nice demonstration of where and when you attended high school. Please share for the class (a) which Article of the 1864 Convention addresses the treatment of civilians and (b) on exactly what date did the United States sign?
If the flag is truly about state rights it wouldn't feature so prominently amongst those who are currently bootlicking for ICE and vehemently opposed to the concept of sanctuary cities.
First, the seceding states themselves were explicit about their reasons for leaving the Union. Mississippi wrote that its “position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery,” and Georgia listed “numerous and serious causes of complaint…with reference to the subject of African slavery.” Historians have confirmed that all four states issuing “Declarations of Causes” centered their justification on slavery, and the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected the “right of property in negro slaves.
Regarding the Crittenden Compromise, the historical record shows the South rejected it not because they opposed permanent slavery, but because it did not guarantee the federal protection of slavery in all territories - a core Southern demand at the time. Republicans opposed it for the opposite reason: it expanded slavery.
On the tariff question, historians consistently find that tariffs were a secondary political issue, far behind slavery in driving sectional conflict. The Morrill Tariff was enacted after Southern senators had already left Congress, intended largely to raise revenue, and replaced historically low pre‑war rates averaging about 17%.
Concerning the Confederate battle flag, its modern symbolism cannot be separated from its history. While originally a military banner, it later became associated with Lost Cause ideology and was “implicitly connected to white supremacy” as it entered public life in the 20th century. Secession documents make clear that “states’ rights” referred specifically to the right to own slaves.
As for Robert E. Lee, his own letters describe slavery as a “moral & political evil,” but he also defended it as necessary and imposed harsher discipline on enslaved laborers under his control. He condoned whipping and enforced the full five-year period of bondage stipulated in the Custis will. Many enslaved people fled to Union lines when given the opportunity, which contradicts claims that affection defined those relationships.
Well, you've cherry picked your facts, but here's a brief reply to a few of them. Lee did not condone whipping - he punished men under him for even whipping an animal, and he never whipped a human being, false stories (published by abolitionist tabloids) to the contrary. The story you've likely heard was one of those published in a tabloid, and the brother of the woman who was supposedly involved said that it never happened, nor were any eyewitnesses ever found to corroborate that story. Lee also did not "enforce the full five year period of bondage" - he actually released the slaves earlier than the full 5 years, but the stipulation in the Custis will was that the slaves were to be freed AFTER all of the estate's debts were paid (these had to be paid with proceeds from agriculture) OR at 5 years, whichever came first. Lee was required by law to pay off the debts first. He did not act out of vengeance or whatever it is you think. Never mind that the war itself hampered the efforts to grow crops and pay off debts.
The problem with many of your arguments is that you seem to believe that only one thing can be true, when in fact it's entirely possible for two things to be true at once. For instance: Some slaves had bad masters and they fled to Union lines, but other slaves stayed with their masters out of loyalty and love. Some slaves fought in the Union Army (where they faced the same prejudice they faced in the South, btw) and many fought in the Confederate Army, and this has been widely documented. Don't insult people by suggesting that they only served as cooks and servants. They were armed, and there are many photographs. Some were taken prisoner and served in prison camps like Camp Chase and Point Lookout - this, too, is documented.
The Morrill Tariff was one of the platforms of the Republican Party, and Lincoln ran on passing and enforcing it. So the threat of the tariff was quite real long before it was passed, and the South knew that it would pass b/c the North controlled Congress. To suggest that the Morrill Tariff wasn't an issue until after it was passed is ridiculous.
When you say "historians found that tariffs were a secondary issue," I suggest you instead not look at historians but at primary source material - the diaries of those who were affected by tariffs, the debates that took place at the state level, etc. Every person in the South was affected by the tariffs, b/c they drove up costs of necessary goods. The tariffs were also the reason that all infrastructure in the South had to be privately financed - the South's money was all going to build textile factories and railroads in the North. The tariffs were the primary reason that most plantation owners were in horrific debt, with multiple mortgages. I suggest you read "Clash of Extremes," a detailed economic analysis of the causes of the War, to understand more.
There is no way you can honestly say the war was fought by the South to preserve slavery, when West Virginia seceded from Virginia - a slave state - and asked to join the North as a separate SLAVE STATE. And indeed it was accepted into the Union, after the Emancipation Proclamation, AS A SLAVE STATE. If the war was fought over slavery, why did 6 slave states send men to fight for the North? What was the rationale for those states? If slavery was the primary reason for secession, then why didn't all slave states secede? The most complete analysis of why men fought was done by Gary Gallagher, and he showed conclusively, upon examining all of the evidence, that Southern men fought for independence and to establish a new nation. And if the speeches are taken in toto, it's clear the purpose was to establish a more limited govt than what the US govt was morphing into, where one section was imposing its will on another. It's also ludicrous to suggest that those men, 95% of whom were not slave owners, fought to preserve a system that they lived outside of. They fought because Lincoln's army stepped across the Virginia border and invaded the South. But the roots of the conflict have much to do with the fact that the North had essentially extorted the South for more than two decades, and with the North controlling all of Congress and the presidency, it was clear to most people in the South that they would continue to be impoverished by taxes (another word for tariffs) if they remained in the Union. A cursory examination of history will show that all wars are fought over power and money - but often the claimed rationale is some moral good - and it's generally hogwash. In the case of the WBTS, Lincoln expressly stated in his inauguration address that he would invade the South "to collect my revenue." In other words, he wanted the South's money. He didn't care about the slaves.
Since you mention ICE and sanctuary cities ... how the flag is used in the current day has nothing whatsoever to do with its historical significance or historical truth, and no one has any power over how it is used. But I know pretty well, being a Virginian myself, how people in the Valley use it and what it means to them. Do some reading about the atrocities committed in the Valley before you suggest otherwise.
Nothing you say about Minnesota has relevance to Virginia, but what's hilarious is that you're actually complaining that the people who are in favor of upholding the law are flying the Confederate flag. Sanctuary cities are not lawful. The concept itself is not lawful. "No one is above the law," and that includes people who walk across our border illegally and commit crimes. ICE has been focusing predominantly on illegals who have committed violent crimes. In sanctuary cities, such people often walk free after committing violent crimes, something that not only isn't lawful but isn't serving the cause of justice for victims. If cities or states want to be "sanctuaries," let them secede. I welcome it. Let them establish their own nations and treat their citizens however they wish. The right of self-determination is absolute. But the problem with your argument is that somehow you're suggesting that in 1861 people who disagreed with the federal govt had no right to do so, but in 2026, those people are heroes. You can't have it both ways. Just remember that in 1861, slavery was legal at the federal level, and the fight over extending it into territories had much less to do with humanitarian concerns and far more to do with who would hold political power in Congress if it was extended. The South's stance was actually far more in line with the concept of self-determination and democracy than the North's. The South didn't say all territories had to be slave territories; it said the citizens that settled there should decide the question for themselves, and it should not be decided by people in Washington who didn't live there. The North didn't argue that slavery shouldn't be extended b/c it was cruel; they simply didn't want more slave states voting in concert with the South.
It's also important to remember that prejudice and severe bigotry existed even in states where blacks were "free." You need only look at Illinois as an example. Slavery was outlawed, yes indeed, but the state also passed "black laws," which forbade any black person from living in Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, while a state senator, voted in favor of those laws, and indeed said quite famously that he favored white people over black ones, and did not want to live with black people. Massachusetts is another state where blacks were forbidden to go to public venues such as theaters, and often were forbidden from living in certain cities or towns, and if they shopped there, they had to be out by sundown. If you'd like to learn more about slavery and black laws in northern states, I suggest slavenorth.com as a starting point.
We should never, ever support censorship in any form. I don't care whether it's the Confederate flag or social media posts. The truth matters, and the truth is far more nuanced than you seem to think, or than historians want you to believe (remember, too, that historians who are trying to make a name for themselves often have an agenda). If we don't learn the entire truth, we will make the same mistakes - and right now, if you know anything about the 1850s, we are hurtling toward another civil war at breakneck speed. Rational minds (not the shrill harpies yelling "F*** ICE!") and people who understand history are the only hope for avoiding it.
As with most of history, Oliver, it is very much more nuanced than it might seem. The American Civil War, certainly falls in that category. As, likely does the English Civil about which I think I have known something, but have long suspected not enough to make hard judgements on who or what was really right.
In the case of the American CW: it was not at all about slavery, but about federal power and money. One of the intended consequences of the war, on the part of the Federal government, was to create a country in which ceding is illegal/impossible. It was a momentous act of government centralization, despite the intent of the Constitution.
We have been taught it was about freeing the slaves in the schools for at least 100 years(probably), but I am old enough to recall some of our school texts that let the truth slip through—not directly, but via innuendo.
I did not put it together until I spent a few intense few days in some southern CW museums…Atlanta’s being the best. My taught perspective on the war evaporated on the spot and my understanding has since been affirmed in further reading and consideration.
I agree, let the flags fly. If for no other reason than to mark an era of our history that we may or may not be proud of… but are, at least, being honest about. There could be another reason, though… that of remembering Constitutionally guaranteed State’s Rights, before all of them completely disappear, as did the right to cede from the Union.
If secession wasn't about slavery then why do most of the secession declarations of the seceding states (source documents) declare the potential loss of slavery as their cause right near the top of the list? By way of reference let me quote the FIRST two sentences of Georgia's secession document "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
I’m old; I don’t remember seeing Confederate flags (certainly not in any number) on a week long visit to the Shenandoah Valley sometime around 1970. Is this a sign of contemporary political protest based on an ahistorical, romanticized past? On a visit to Decatur Alabama several years ago there were vastly more Confederate flags than would have been the case, say 25 years ago. Many were of the Indian head type, again presumably indicating a rebellious spirit toward the status quo.
We used to head south every Easter in the sixties/seventies/early eighties. When I visited more recently I was astounded to see the number of Confederate flags flying. It was far different from my previous trips.
Henry, I am glad you are enjoying your trips into the countryside. They will be instructive in many ways.
I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley in the 2000s and early 2010s. When I was a kid the flag was ubiquitous
A friend who works at Gettysburg told me decades ago that, when the national park was being set up, it was the Confederate veterans who requested that the battle flag not be part of any display. "That war is over" was the unanimous feeling. It wasn't until the anti-Civil Rights backlash of the 1950s and 1960s that the flag reappeared as part of several State flags, as well as flying throughout the South & elsewhere.
Apart from the obvious reasons for not flying that flag, I don't understand why people want to remember a *loss* in a war so lovingly.
Perhaps "remembering a loss lovingly" is not the reason why folks fly flags.
Losing doesn't change how you feel about someone killed in a war or a place in which your people have lived for generations.
Pairs of gas stations and pairs of churches? Or church/gas station pairs? I suspect, based on Harold Hotelling, the former. And a difference between the callow communists and the Confederate flag wavers is that, in my experience, most of the former are convinced that communism didn't really cause those deaths while the latter do understand that slavery was real but it's not enough to upset them. Until fairly recently, I'd have said that makes the red bridges possibly more dangerous, but definitely more pleasant to be around than the Dukes of Hazzard, the Dukes being inevitably too small in number to be more than locally destructive. I'm no longer convinced of that now.
I also suspect that most of the callow Communists grew out of it within a year - that it was more a fashion statement, or at best a statement of ‘I am against American capitalism’ than ‘I have read “Das Kapital” and “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: an Infantile Disorder”’.
Attending a meeting organised by the University Communist society is usually a good cure for most.
At a hunch, I would say the ones who take it seriously are far less likely to indulge in Soviet chic.
As somebody who has read Das Kapital new and old and then went to a local communist society meetup I can agree, that is is a good cure :D
Loved this. Thank you.
[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . .
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
"It cannot be sensible to make the Confederate flag illegal today, but I am one who thinks the victorious Union should have crushed it into the dust of history." Well said.
The SUPERMAJORITY PLAN TO IMPEACH TRUMP and HIS ADMINISTRATION
It will take 292 house and 67 senate votes to obtain a supermajority vote. This is the key to accomplishing anything in the house or senate. The house and senate will be able to impeach Trump and his administration for their crimes and corruption.
The Democrats are the only ones that will stand against Trump. We have to vote out as many republicans as possible.
EVERYONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS IN THE NOVEMBER 3RD MIDTERM ELECTIONS TO MAKE THIS WORK
Make sure you share this with everyone you know without social media. People without social media are unaware how corrupt and detrimental Trump’s administration really is for our country. The media outlets do not post anything negative about Trump. Some people don’t even know what the midterm elections are or how important they are.
TRUMP, HIS ADMINISTRATION, HIS BILLIONAIRE PEDOPHILE NETWORK , AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ARE MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE WORKING CLASS TO SURVIVE.
WE HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM DESTROYING THE COUNTRY
“ Shenandoah is the sort of place where nothing is modern.”
An awful lot of the US is like that. Shenandoah has some great natural beauty, but I don’t think that it is all that unique otherwise. The same kind of things can be said for a whole swathe of the country running from non-coastal New England, west towards the Great Lakes, and southwest all the way towards the river towns of the Mississippi. The economic and population growth boom times for most of those places are generations in the past, so most everything is old and aging.
"I am one who thinks the victorious Union should have crushed it into the dust of history."
My amateur understanding/guess is that the Union actually tried too hard to "crush" the confederacy and the persistence of the flag is multigenerational backlash. I think the GDR was probably much harsher on ex-Nazis and the population in general and that's where we see the most neo-Nazis now. To actually make bad ideas disappear, you need to give people off-ramps.
My understanding (which could be wrong) was that Reconstruction lasted about as long as Federal troops remained in the South. But occupying a foreign country is expensive and a pain in the *ss if you don’t have the local elites on board to do the actual day to day grunt work of governing a place. And the local elites in the South were not onboard with political and legal equality for former slaves, and often enough they also weren’t alright with political equality with poor whites either. I think most people outside the South understood the objectives of the war to be about some combination of preserving the Union and ending Slavery. I don’t think that they cared much about political and civil rights for blacks; my recollection is that if you read Lincoln’s speeches he frequently says things that sound as if they are an attempt to reassure racists that the Republican Party does not support civil rights for blacks, but rather only the end of slavery. Anyway, the point is that people outside the South were not convinced that an indefinite occupation was worthwhile, as they were never convinced of the importance of political and civil rights for blacks, so support for the occupation crumbled pretty quickly, and the withdrawal of Federal troops allowed the local elites to reassert their control.
US Civil War back then, English Civil War back then. Always worthwhile to drill down on confederate flag since it is still around. Many think we are in a current civil war, hence there are many types of flags flying. Upside down USA flag flying in Minneapolis, very contentious times…