The Stars and Bars Now, the Stars and Stripes Next

On balance, the Internet is a wonderful thing. If you overlook the fluff and other stuff, it’s a veritable treasure-trove of information. It keeps things lively. And it keeps them from falling down the Memory Hole.

Like the Clinton-Gore license plate displayed here on Monomakhos.

Yep, that’s right. That’s the old Stars and Bars, Ole Suspenders, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It’s been a huge part of Americana since the War of the Northern Aggression. Up until a few decades ago it was a proud emblem of Southron heritage. Nobody took offense when it draped The General Lee, the car that Bo and Luke Duke drove on The Dukes of Hazard. It was certainly good enough for the old horndog and his vice-president to use just a few years later. Where was all the hub-bub then?

But because of the pusillanimity of many in the GOP, gosh darn it’ we gotta remove this proud emblem from everywhere. Walmart, Amazon, and others are now jumping on the bandwagon, refusing to sell Confederate-themed merchandise.

Idiots. Cowards. Wasn’t it Lenin who said that the capitalist would sell us the rope with which to hang him?

Phooey on them. I’m not worried about Lee’s battle-flag. St Andrew’s Cross has a proud and glorious history spanning time and continents. The history and feeling which the rebel flag engenders within the American heart can’t and won’t be completely crushed, try as the oligarchs who rule us wish –silenced for a season or two–but never completely eradicated. Look at the Donetsk rebels in the eastern Ukraine: they’ve adopted it wholesale with only minute variations. Good on them, I say.

So why am I optimistic that the totalitarian spirit behind this move will fail? The reason is because we’re all rebels at heart and if that spirit was ever totally crushed, then America will be no more. I’m not ready to throw in the towel yet and given the way things are going in the culture, we’ll need a standard to rally around when things finally collapse into the Balkan nightmare that is our unfortunate destiny.

You see, I’m more worried about Old Glory. To the Cultural Marxist, the real villain is the Stars and Stripes. not the Stars and Bars. That’s small beer in the grand scheme of things. Yup, you read that right. The American flag has been removed from certain precincts because it offended some Mexican-American students in California during Cinqo de Mayo. It’s happened as well in other universities. It’s all about “micro-agression,” that sort of thing. All nonsense.

The late Sam Francis predicted this over a decade ago: there’s no pleasing these people. Those who want to see the Confederate flag eradicated will not rest until the same fate befalls Old Glory. They want nothing less than the dissolution of the American nation and the destruction of all that is reminiscent of European culture. I used to think they hated only Christianity but I’m equally sure that they hate Greek and Norse mythology almost as much. All dead white males and all that.

They won’t rest until Old Glory is relegated to some museum as well. And from their febrile point of view, who can blame them? After all, slavery existed for a lot longer under the Union that it did during the four short years of the Confederacy. And what do you think was the last sight that a Sioux child saw at Wounded Knee, right before he was bayoneted to death? What was the flag that decorated the Enola Gay, the bomber that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?

This moral preening is idiotic. No flag is immune from imputation of evil. From the solar emblem of ancient Macedon to the Chi-Rho of Constantine, from the Cross of St George on England’s banner to the Star of David on Israel’s, flags have been used to rally troops to kill others. That’s never going to change (at least until the Lord returns).

In the meantime, take a sip of Bourbon, admire the chivalrous spirit of the Old South, and gather as much Confederate memorabilia as you can while it still legal. And gird yourselves for the fight for our quickly eroding liberties.


  1. Nate Trost says

    I think this writer was more eloquent over a decade ago than I could manage now. I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion.

    John Scalzi wrote:
    Fine. As I’ve said before, if you want to believe that the Confederate flags represent anything but an evil and ultimately pathetically inept institution, and all the consequent stupidity that followed through its use by segregationists, morons and demagogic flag wavers who’d rather rile up the easily excitable than actually make the South a better place for all its citizens, then by all means go right ahead. We’ll agree to disagree.

    But please don’t write to me saying that the meaning of the Confederate flag has changed or should change. Short of wiping out the history of the Confederacy itself and pretending it never existed, this isn’t going to happen. The Confederate flag a symbol of evil, and like most symbols of evil it’s much better used as a reminder of the damage evil can do, than it is as a misplaced symbol of pride.

    The Confederate flags are the symbols of losers, and those who glorify losers. I really wouldn’t have it any other way.

    • Sounds like someone’s study of history went no further than federal 10th grade textbooks.

      • Federal textbooks? Find me one textbook written by the federal government.

        Textbooks are written by corporate employees whose agendas are subservient to the states that approve the books in question.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Matt, as of a few decades ago, the Federal government had infiltrated enough of its flunkies in most state governments, that and combined with fact that thanks to the magic of federal matching grants, revenue-sharing, the veto of the federal judiciary, etc, the difference between the States and the Feds is one without a difference.

    • George Michalopulos says

      That’s Scalzi’s opinion. No one can deny the martial prowess or strategic brilliance of the officers and men who made up the Confederacy.

      And no, the vast majority of Southerners fought not to preserve slavery (as they didn’t own any) but because they were being invaded by Northern fanatics who were hell-bent on genocide.

      Think of it this way: a large percentage of the American populace don’t like the way this country is going but if a foreign nation invaded us and laid waste to our population, we’d all take up arms and fight, to the death if need be. General Robert E Lee was asked by Lincoln to be general-in-chief of the Union army after Virginia seceded and he responded thusly: “you would have me raise my sword against my State?”

      • Expecting social justice warriors to understand facts is too much to ask.

        The breakup of the Union was brewing long before slavery became controversial. The rich, industrial northern states had always used political tricks to enact unfair taxation on the poorer, rural South. Secession was frequently discussed during the first half of the 19th century and nobody felt it was illegal. How could it be, when the revolution was fought for the right of self-determination?

        I posit that 99.9% of people participating in the confederate flag outrage meme have never read the CS constitution or the states’ declarations of secession, have no understanding of CS federal law on slavery or any other matter, and are clueless in general.

        Note: I am a Northerner, although my family didn’t come over here till the 1880s. I have no personal dog in the fight. I just call the facts as I see them.

        • Terry Myles says

          I too have no dog in the fight, my maternal and paternal grandparents came to The United States at the end of the 19th century. What I will never understand is the need to fight a rearguard action concerning the Civil War a century and a half after the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox. Constitutions are written as much for the opinion of others as it is to be a practical document of government. Idealizing the “heroes” of the rebellion is as fanciful as treating the Founding Fathers as if they walked on water. It has been my understanding since childhood that only Christ is known to have been capable of that. While I respect Mr. Michalopulos’ right to choose his blog topics, I feel that wrapping Holy Orthodoxy in the “stars and the bars” by implication (we do read this blog because of our interest and love for Orthodoxy) is a disservice to the Church. Lee is dead, Grant is dead as are Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln. Let them rest in peace.

          • By all appearances it’s the Southern States haters who are fighting the rear-guard action. Who brought up the matter of the flag?

      • Nate Trost says

        George Michalopulos wrote
        And no, the vast majority of Southerners fought not to preserve slavery (as they didn’t own any) but because they were being invaded by Northern fanatics who were hell-bent on genocide.

        They were participants in the entire Southern economy, of which slavery was integral.

        At the end of the day, your revisionism just ain’t gonna fly.

        • To which ports were the slaves imported from Africa? In what states were those shipping companies based? New York and Massachusetts.

          Lincoln’s (unconstitutional) Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederate States, not the slave states that remained in the Union. Those slaves were not freed until the constitution was amended.

          Let’s not pretend it’s all as clear-cut as your 8th grade history teacher said it was.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald says

            New york and Massachusetts were the preferred ports of entry for just about everything, Ages. Didn’t you know that?

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        But raising it against his country was no problem.

        “Northern fanatics that were Hell-bent on genocide”? This mindset is impervious to discussion.

        As an Anglo/Canadian/American, I’m glad that I have no historical or racial grievances. Grievances and resentments, including historical ones, are a terrible thing to bear. The thing most difficult to understand is why they are nourished and burnished down the generations.

        I love that old Confederate linguistic romanticism! Instead of, “no, I won’t take the job”, it’s “you would have me raise my sword against my state?” Sorry for asking, Bob!

        • George Michalopulos says

          His “country” was Virginia. This was not a “civil war,” in which ethnic brethren fight against each other for the spoils of governance. It was a war between sovereign States in which one group of States wished to form their own country.

      • Pere LaChaise says

        You are so completely off-base here in your oddball Southron jingoism, George.
        What does the apostle Paul say about scandalizing his brother? That banner symbolizes such hatred, sedition and murder that anyone rising to its defense can only be seen as a complete creep at this very late point in this sad nation’s history. Down with that flag!

    • George Michalopulos says

      Well lookee here:

      P.S. I heard on the grapevine that Imam Obama was forced to spend the night on Air Force One during his recent visit to Oklahoma. It seems that the Secret Service couldn’t guarantee his safety at any of the local hotels.

  2. Seraphim98 says

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C. S. Lewis

  3. Daniel E Fall says

    That flag should have been outlawed at the end of the war. It has been the south’s silent rebellion for as long. Finally someone has the balls, oh wait, no she doesn’t, to get rid of it.

    • Thank God the unconstitutional acts of the postbellum federal government didn’t extend to outlawing free speech, as you would have it.

      • Daniel E Fall says

        Try flying the swastika around and see how it works for ya

        • I reject the implication that the Southern Cross and the Swastika are the same thing.

          And I am not inclined to fly the Swastika, but if I did, I would be within my legal rights to do so.

    • ReaderEmanuel says

      Unpleasant as it may seem to you and others, Daniel, that flag is a part of our history. Do you want to get rid of other aspects of our history too, like the Soviets did, just because you don’t like them? That’s how things get forgotten, rewritten, or totally ignored. We have our nation’s history, good or bad, whether we like it or not. How about we erase the memory of Vietnam while we are at it, too? That was a very unpopular war and a very trying time in our history, too. So let’s just forget all the symbolism that was associated with that time in our history as well.

  4. Tim R. Mortiss says

    I agree with you on this, George, as much as I have no truck at all with Southronism, as we have discussed several times here.

    Above all I dislike these mass displays of emotion, everybody jumping on the bandwagon, all the rest of it.

    • Pere LaChaise says

      You are so completely off-base here in your oddball Southron jingoism, George.
      What does the apostle Paul say about scandalizing his brother? That banner symbolizes such hatred, sedition and murder that anyone rising to its defense can only be seen as a complete creep at this very late point in this sad nation’s history. Down with that flag!

    • Pere LaChaise says

      Tim’s delicate sensibility is perturbed by the untoward gushing of emotion. How would his privileged hide feel if members of his family were gunned down at church? Remember what this is about. (hint: it’s not about you).

      • I can’t envision the Apostle Paul ever employing a logical fallacy to try to implement cultural change. Such impure motivations do indeed scandalize brothers.

  5. “Cultural Marxist” – what precisely is a cultural Marxist, other than someone George doesn’t like?

    • George Michalopulos says

      Google Antonio Gramsci. That will give you a working definition of “cultural marxism.” And you’re right: I don’t like those people nor what they’ve done to our society. I don’t know any right-thinking man who does.

  6. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald says

    Texan melodrama! I say if losers want to keep flying the Losers’ Flag—-let them! And isn’t there going to be a whingingin essay about the Juneteenth holiday just passed?

    • Ironic statement from an American officer who served durring Vietnam. Unless, by some twist of fact we won……..

    • Fr. Blues says

      Ah yes Fitz, speaking of losers, aren’t you originally from Detroit, Michigan? What a bastion of refined culture and learning it has become under the guidance of the federal government.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald says

        “Fr. Blues” (another maidenly and cowardly pseudonym og indeterminate sex, strikes a deadly intellectual blow against “Fitz.” No fear of being puerile, right? I myself was born in Detroit back in 1932. And although I’ve travelled rather a lot, I still love the place. I graduated from Wayne State long ago, but it’s still going strong: a cente of learning and culture and research. It’s an economic ruin, to be sure but I still like the place (and the state). Please, tell me more about this guidance by the federal government—is that a slogan of some kind or what? I still have family in Detroit, and I think many people drive Detroit automobiles. Ever been to Belle Isle or the art institute or the zoo?
        I’d much rather live in Detroit than in Dallas or Houston or El Paso or Austin or Fort Worth! I’d prefer it to any capital or other city of the South. But then I loved the Army and liked the Air Force.
        I still don’t inderstand the South’s cult of losing, though. Perhaps if you people would start mindlessly chanting “C.S.A! C.S..A!’ you’d start to feel better?

        • George Michalopulos says

          Really, Your Grace? You’d rather go an live in Detroit than in Dallas? I mean, the real Detroit as opposed to some lily-white suburb? The same Detroit in which it is possible to buy an entire city block for just a pittance? The same Detroit where sane people have been leaving from in droves for the last forty years? That Detroit?

        • Fr. Blues says

          Ok Fitz, I will make it simple for you. Take a look at the link below and you will get an idea of what is meant by federal guidance. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

        • Fr. Blues says

          Ok Fitz, I will make it easy for you. Copy copy and paste the following URL into your browser:

          Detroit is a shit hole today because of federal guidelines and policies.

          …….”you people”……Apparently your arrogance knows no bounds. Please remain living where you are presently located. The south doesn’t need your kind down here “straightening it out”.

        • George Osborne says

          Your Grace,

          I don’t often allow myself to get sucked into the often narcissistic and puerile exchanges that are an all so common feature of this blog, but your comments above deserve a reply, I think.

          I am a Southerner, born and bred, hold a doctorate and have been Orthodox for over 40 years. I am also proud of my heritage. For many of us with southern roots, we know that regardless of what first-wave and revisionist historians claim, the simple truth is that for most folks down here, the War Between the States (a much better phrase that Civil War, I think) was not about slavery, northern aggression or any other constitutional dispute about the niceties of nullification or the theoretical ability to withdraw from a voluntarily entered upon union of states. For the most part, it was an issue of local patriotism. At that time, in the South, folks identified with their State and, indeed, with their local community more than with an abstract union that few of the common people had any relationship with at all. Militias were local “home guard” created for local defense. When the federal government sent an army into Mexico in the 1840s, it was basically comprised of state-raised and maintained troops. My home state of Tennessee gained the monicker “Volunteer State” for surpassing its quota. My point is that when the recruiting drum was beaten in the town square, a man joined his neighbors and friends primarily because they were his neighbors and friends. Politics was abstract. Community loyalty was not. Men volunteered not to preserve slavery. They volunteered because of the “band of brothers” attitude fostered when your local county raised a company of infantry or a squadron of calvary and men you had grown-up with marched of to war.

          One has to remember – and separate – the conditions before the war with the state of mind after 3-5 years of a war of attrition and subsequent occupation, suspension of civil rights and reconstruction. If Lincoln’s plan had been administered we might not even be having this conversation. The ultra-southernism of today and the highjacking of the southern army’s battle flag by racist fanatics has nothing whatsoever to do with the Southern culture and attitude before the war. We were and are to some extent an insular lot down here. Back in the 1860’s, we were for the most part a homogeneous English and Scottish society with a few French enclaves in Charleston and New Orleans. Irish and German immigrants did not generally people our regiments, it was mostly dirt-grubbing, small farmers and merchants. There was a regional and local pride. There was a real sense that folks were defending their homes and hearths—often from the folks a county or two over here in Tennessee!

          So, you are most welcome to live anywhere you wish and that the Synod will allow you to live, but please, do not disparage those us us who see the attitudes and patriotism of our forebears as something to admire even if we ultimately disagree with the larger social and political nature of the separation. We have no interest in refighting an unfortunate event in our nation’s history but neither will be gladly tolerate scorn from those as we say down here “have no dog in the hunt.”

          Asking for your prayers, I remain

          Yours in Christ

  7. Patron Saint of the Union Nice Guy says

    I agree with one of the aforementioned who truthfully stated that the flag of rebellion should have ended with the conclusion of The War of the Rebellion. The confederate flag is a symbol of oppression and destruction of the Union, period. It has been proven time and again that the “Lost Cause” was not about states’ rights but about the sad perpetuity of slavery. And to think that the South could attend church knowing that they were enslaving an entire race of people is just astounding. The stars and bars is tantamount to the third reich’s flag. And in the immortal words of those brave Union heroes at Cemetery Ridge on July 3rd, I say, “FREDERICKSBURG! FREDERICKSBURG!” The rebel traitors should have been destroyed at Antietam, but we had a double agent in “Little Mac.”

    • George Michalopulos says

      If the South had wanted to perpetuate slavery in perpetuity, the eleven, then thirteen States would have remained in the Union, thereby making it impossible for the United States to outlaw slavery.

      How so? The overturning of slavery could only happen by Constitutional amendment, that is to say 3/4 of the States would have had to vote to overturn it. At the time of the War Between the States, there were 14 States that had legal slavery (including Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland). Assuming that all 14 States were rock-solid in their desire to perpetuate slavery, it would have taken at least 40 or more States to vote against them. In other words, the United States would have to have fifty-four States total. At the time of the War, there were only thirty-six states in the Union.

      Since we don’t now, 150 years later, have 54 States, slavery would still be in existence had there been no secession.

    • This post is so edgy, it could slice through a steak.

    • The US flag is a flag of rebellion. Ask the British. What are you gonna do about it?

  8. Thomas Barker says

    A young man, possibly mentally unhinged and definitely acting under demonic influence, uses a gun to kill several people. Upon review of his social media photographs it is noted that the Confederate flag is displayed prominently in some of the photos. Therefore the Confederate flag must be banned from all government facilities in South Carolina. Therefore? Quite a leap. What’s really at work here is a thinly veiled application of Churchill’s principle “never let a good crisis go to waste,” often quoted by oligarch class sociopaths. The heinous murders were the opportunity to promote an unrelated agenda. Perhaps the Confederate flag should be banned. How about putting it on a South Carolina ballot and letting the people decide in the fashion of democracy?

    • Kate Hartounian says

      This is a good point. If he had the now famous atheist red “A” on a flag in the background, no one would be banning that, nor even if he had a hammer and cycle flag. No one is banning the Nazi flag. It is simply another example of bandwagon emotion. There is no logic here. If we are to become an authoritarian state, at least our politicians (choke, vomit) could be logically consistent, and ban all of it, and enforce the pledge of allegiance in classrooms, and make everyone to fly the American flag. But they are not interested in logic. They are interested in looking good to the public.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Kate, you bring up an interesting point: Amazon has jumped on the bandwagon as you say but you can still buy Nazi memorabilia there. Communist memorabilia as well. Think of it: a tiny secessionist movement which fought valiantly for the right of independence at around the same time as the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Mexicans, Texans, etc, and following the example of the most famous independence/secessionist movement of all time (the American colonies), is singled out for obloquy while Communism (which slaughtered over 100 million people) is treated with a big yawn.

        Kinda makes you wonder.

      • Terry Myles says

        Atheism hardly rates equal billing with the White Supremacy, legal segregation and race and religious hatred (anti-semitism) that the stars and bars have come to represent.

    • “How about putting it on a South Carolina ballot and letting the people decide in the fashion of democracy?”

      It appears “the people” no longer have the vote. Only the few, the entitled. . . . .

  9. cynthia curran says

    George you see the South as all innocent. They were trading their cotton to England instead of the Northern states. They basically wanted to trade with England since it cost them less.

    • George Michalopulos says

      No Cynthia, no man, or aggregation of men (in this case the Southern states) can be “innocent” anywhere and everywhere. If every man is a sinner –and he is–then ever agglomeration of men is likewise sinful. We live in a fallen world. The question is whether a slave-owning region had the right to secede: the United States did so from Great Britain and set up a Constitution to preserve that peculiar institution. How was it wrong for a smaller slave-owning region to do likewise?

    • They were driven to do so because of the wildly unequal taxation imposed by the Northern-controlled Congress in the 1820s-40s.

      • Terry Myles says

        The Missouri Compromise kept the Senate in balance between the two regions of the republic. No tax bill coming out of the House that unduly injured the South would pass the Senate. Southern hotheads wanted war in 1812 and secession in 1860.

        • That’s a nice theory, but that’s not what happened. Look at some primary sources.

          Also, the Southern states are not the only ones that talked about secession. Massachusetts threatened during Jefferson’s administration, and you’ll note there was never a question as to whether it was legal, nor was the union held to be perpetual.

    • They basically wanted to trade with England since it cost them less.

      You mean the way the US does with China now?

  10. That flag, as to South Carolina, wasn’t flying until 1962. It wasn’t present in the decades before because it was intended as a statement against the civil rights movement of the time. Tear it down. The symbol of racist traitorous segregationists has no place in our society except in history books and museums placing it in the right context.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Steve, as an American of Greek descent, I can say that no Greek I know harbors feelings of ill-will towards the insignia, vestiges, and accoutrements of the ancient Greek city-states who fought each other near-to-the-death in a far worse (and longer) internecine conflict over two thousand years ago. I don’t know which side my ancestors (if any) were on during the Pelloponesian War but I see nothing wrong in commemorating their valiance in battle.

      To try and strike down the Stars and Bars is at base a sordid attempt to strip America of its history. Even non-Southern sympathizers are beginning to wake up to this fact. England still cherishes the emblems of the Yorks and the Lancasters, and has no intention of losing its history because an unfortunate civil war. Neither should we.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Another point: Steve, if you really believed that then you would be raising a ruckus about Amazon, in which you can still buy Nazi memorabilia all the live-long day.

      • George,

        Government and private actors are subject to different standards. I’m not objecting to a trade in confederate memorabilia–every one is entitled to her or his own perversions that don’t affect the rest of us. My point was the timing–that flag wasn’t flying at the SC statehouse as a memorial to SC’s dead warriors from the Civil War until 1962 (and I don’t quibble with honoring ancestors who sacrificed themselves for what they perceived to be a worthy cause–I just don’t think taxpayers should pay for it when the cause was racist and their leaders traitors, Even Mitch McConnell has said it’s time to remove Jeff Davis from his perch in Frankfort.). The timing of the raising of that flag in 1962 shows it was a provocation done for the same reason George Wallace and Lester Maddox tried barring our fellow citizens from schools and universities.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Steve, you’re right: the Confederate battle-flag was put up on many state capitol grounds as a political statement back in the 50s and 60s (by Democrats mind you, many of them progressive ironically enough). It was done as a big Middle Finger to the federal government. So yes, it was all political and not all above board vis-a-vis Southern heritage. I get that.

          The fed’s hands weren’t entirely clean in this matter nor did they not have their own agendas. And anyway, as as a general rule it’s good every now and then for the federal government to get a big middle finger shoved into its collective face.

          What was it that Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots every so often?

  11. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    It is curious that some correspondents on this blog site refer to the battle flag of the Confederacy as a “losers’ flag.” Significant, I think, inasmuch as it is the only America flag that bears the image of the Cross.

    I just returned from a diocesan meeting where one of my brother priests was clad in a gray cassock.

    I told him to enjoy dressing in gray while he is still allowed to.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      It is curious that some correspondents on this blog site refer to the battle flag of the Confederacy as a “losers’ flag.” Significant, I think, inasmuch as it is the only America flag that bears the image of the Cross.

      Or rather the Confederacy desecrated the cross by defending slavery under its banner.

      • George Michalopulos says

        But slavery was defended for far longer under the Stars and Stripes, was it not? Do you forget that the British promised emancipation to American slaves if they would fight for the Crown?

        • Mark E. Fisus says

          The Stars and Stripes doesn’t have a cross on it. Fr. Patrick was implying that the Confederate flag is above criticism because it is a form of the cross.

          The North did not defend slavery. About slavery, the Stars and Stripes at worst represented a divided country on the issue. It is also the banner of the army that freed the slaves.

          • The North did not defend slavery.

            More federal hysteria.

            The slave states that remained in the Union did not get rid of slavery until the 13th Amendment, which passed after the war. General Grant did not free his own slaves until he was required to do so by law.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            Fr. Patrick was implying that the Confederate flag is above criticism because it is a form of the cross.

            Father Patrick didn’t come within a million miles of implying any such thing.

      • Not only does the Maryland flag have crosses on it but the Crossland Banners on two quadrants are there to honor the Confederate Marylanders who fought for the South under that banner.

        Take down that flag!

    • This fact was not lost on many southerners, as seen in this Southern anthem:

      Oh! say: can you see, through the gloom and the storm,
      More bright for the darkness, that pure Constellation?
      Like the symbol of love and redemption its form,
      As it points to the haven of hope for the nation.

      How radiant each star, as the beacon afar,
      Giving promise of peace, or assurance in war!
      ’Tis the Cross of the South, which shall ever remain
      To light us to Freedom and Glory again!

      ’Tis the Emblem of peace, ’tis the Day-star of hope,
      Like the sacred Labarum that guided the Roman;

      From the shore of the Gulf to the Delaware’s slope,
      ’Tis the trust of the Free, and the terror of Foemen.
      Fling it folds to the air, while we boldly declare
      The rights we demand, or the deeds that we dare!
      While the Cross of the South shall, in triumph, remain
      To light us to Freedom and Glory again!

      And if peace should be hopeless and justice denied,
      And war’s bloody vulture should flap its black pinions:
      Then, gladly: To arms! while we hurl, in our pride,
      Defiance to Tyrants and death to their minions!
      With our front in the field, swearing never to yield,
      Or return like the Spartan in death on our shield!
      And the Cross of the South shall triumphantly wave
      As the Flag of the Free, or the Pall of the Brave!

      Oh to have a country that explicitly placed its hope in the sign of the cross.

  12. Seraphim98 says

    Maybe we can borrow the Novorussoian flag until reason prevails. It too is a successionist movement seeking leave a regime it views as contrary to it’s interest and liberty and to rejoin what its citizens regard as it’s mother country.

    • Jim of Olym says

      Speaking of Novorossia, can anyone here tell me where I can pick up a St. George ribbon like Putin is wearing?

      • Gregory Manning says

        Just enter “St. George ribbon” in your search window and hit “enter”.

  13. Seraphim98 says

    It seems to be history is repeating itself. This old poem was written for the Stainless Banner, not the Battle Flag, but in today’s outrages and ceaseless calumnies against the South and its heritage…it’s own truer, fuller, historical tradition passed down generation generation…the winds have shifted, and for a season perhaps in many places…though hardly all, it might be the better part of valor offer what pitiful generosity and reverence still lies with us to give, that gallant flag. Here is a poem by the poet laureate of the South, Fr. Abram Ryan entitled, “The Conquered Banner”.

    The Conquered Banner

    By Abram Joseph Ryan

    FURL that Banner, for ’t is weary;
    Round its staff ’t is drooping dreary:
    Furl it, fold it,—it is best;
    For there ’s not a man to wave it,
    And there ’s not a sword to save it, 5
    And there ’s not one left to lave it
    In the blood which heroes gave it,
    And its foes now scorn and brave it:
    Furl it, hide it,—let it rest!

    Take that Banner down! ’t is tattered; 10
    Broken is its staff and shattered;
    And the valiant hosts are scattered,
    Over whom it floated high.
    Oh, ’t is hard for us to fold it,
    Hard to think there ’s none to hold it, 15
    Hard that those who once unrolled it
    Now must furl it with a sigh!

    Furl that Banner—furl it sadly!
    Once ten thousands hailed it gladly,
    And ten thousands wildly, madly, 20
    Swore it should forever wave;
    Swore that foeman’s sword should never
    Hearts like theirs entwined dissever,
    Till that flag should float forever
    O’er their freedom or their grave! 25

    Furl it! for the hands that grasped it,
    And the hearts that fondly clasped it,
    Cold and dead are lying low;
    And that Banner—it is trailing,
    While around it sounds the wailing 30
    Of its people in their woe.

    For, though conquered, they adore it,—
    Love the cold, dead hands that bore it,
    Weep for those who fell before it,
    Pardon those who trailed and tore it; 35
    And oh, wildly they deplore it,
    Now to furl and fold it so!

    Furl that Banner! True, ’t is gory,
    Yet ’t is wreathed around with glory,
    And ’t will live in song and story 40
    Though its folds are in the dust!
    For its fame on brightest pages,
    Penned by poets and by sages,
    Shall go sounding down the ages—
    Furl its folds though now we must. 45

    Furl that Banner, softly, slowly!
    Treat it gently—it is holy,
    For it droops above the dead.
    Touch it not—unfold it never;
    Let it droop there, furled forever,— 50
    For its people’s hopes are fled!

    • We can see that the irrational disdain for the South, kindled during the war and especially the Radical Reconstruction, continues today. The words of this song from 1865 could be said today:

      So be perfidious, ye who will,
      Renounce your sacred word,
      Destroy all that which men hold dear
      And let your eagle-bird
      Perch proudly on your banner
      And let his motto be:
      “That which I cannot win by fight,
      I gain by treachery.”

      We know that we were rebels,
      And we don’t deny the name.
      We look on that which we have done
      With grief but not with shame.

  14. Michael Kinsey 1380805 says

    The 4 horsemen, historically were Islam, Communism, which destroyed the Christian empires, The scale is the 3rd horseman .It is the value system of secularism-humanism This value system has lead us to father delivering up the son unto death, 1,2 billion world wide since the medical procedure became relatively safe for the mother. Son delivering up the father is euthanasia, whose frequency of practice is hidden at the present. This generation does what ever is to their worldly advantage over their fellow man as the greatest good, in a cultural mindset of predatory relationships only. These create the culture of death, the last horseman, and the evil fullness of the last evil generation,reaching it’s ugly climax. The USA does not stand a chance, with out major civil conflict to restore human right,. Impossible to win because they, the ungodly ,control all finance Only huge legions of angels could win. And they will win at Armageddon. I am persuade to believe we are at the end of the beginning of the end, as the Archangel Gabrial described it. The end is next. Only the mark needs to appear, The whole world will go cashless within 10 years, As Fr Seraphim Rose stated, It’s later than you think. Glory be to God

  15. Monk James says

    As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere many times, I don’t do politics. This conversation struck me as political, and so I though that, at first, I might best stay out of it.

    But now I think that there are moral issues here which ought to be acknowledged..

    In my heart of hearts, I understand and believe that all of the american secessionists of the 1860s were sincere in their political and social beliefs at the same time as I believe that they were dead wrong.

    The defenders of the confederacy and their legendary gallantry and everything else aside, the main point of the secessionists — states’ rights theorists — was that individual states could, should, must remain FREE to allow human slavery. The main point was that they should be allowed to have slaves and we can’t get around that. If someone could adduce a more realistic excuse for the attempted secession of slave-states, I’d like to hear it.

    This is more than ironic.

    The greatest single right of the individual american states in 1861 — according to the rebellious ‘confederacy’ — was that of enslaving people. And this was more than wrong. It was evil in the extreme, and should have been resisted by good people, as it often was.

    And so it was. And so it must be now.

    Now, in our time, almost all uses of the ‘confederate’ flag evoke experiences of the KKK and other recalcitrant, racist, bigoted, ignorant ideologies.

    This wretched flag is now rightly recognized as a symbol of evil and prejudice and violence. It should not now or evermore be associated with government on any level in the USA.

    And that’s just as true of the swastika, in case anyone is reading.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Monk James, slavery was and is evil. Of this there can be no doubt. But where will it end? Is not ethnic cleansing illegal? Then lets invade Israel and Turkey because of their displacement of indigenous peoples from territories conquered by them. Why not bomb Great Britain for its refusal to give up the Straits of Gibraltar to Spain?

      Why stop there? Women can’t vote or drive in Saudi Arabia, let’s teach them a thing or two. How about homosexuals who are stoned to death in many Moslem countries? Let’s conquer swaths of Africa where slavery is still existent.

      As for KKK rallies, you will see just as many, if not more, American flags there than Rebel ones. Is there something pleasing about Old Glory to white supremacists?

      • Terry Myles says

        You are trying to obscure evil under a tidal wave of other evils. It is just not a good excuse. Monk James is right.

    • Seraphim98 says

      Monk James, it seems you are missing the central point about why Southerns have loved the memory of the Confederacy and it’s battle flag. You are right that the South wanted to succeed in order to preserve the institution of slavery from perceived threats within the Union. So it is right to say succession had a lot to do with slavery as an issue of economic interest to the South. And it is very easy to condemn this view from our comfy chairs a hundred and fifty years later because we are so morally superior. After all, they enslaved people by the hundreds of thousands…whereas we kill them by tens of millions in legal abortion mills (and none dare call it treason…or even murder). But it is well to remember that even those who wanted to see the success of abolition did not view black men as equal in their humanity as whites. Abraham Lincoln made it very clear to Frederick Douglass that there was no room for free blacks in American society. Moreover, the conditions of “free laborers” up north made the situation of many enslaved blacks, as bad as that was, more enviable that the material situation of free whites working the factories. Indeed,…perhaps you didn’t know, that prior to the war one of the favorite ditties of the slaves was a song entitled, “I Would Rather be A N***** Than a Poor White Man.” The only advantage of the poor white trash was that at least they were “free” to pick up and go live hand to mouth somewhere’s else. And those laborers up north they despised free blacks who would often work for even less money than themselves and thus were seen as a threat to their livelihoods. So, at the time of the war, slavery was protected by the Constitution. Lincoln may not have liked slavery and abhorred any notion of it’s spread, but it was not his agenda to free slaves. He said that it was to preserve the union with or without slaves….he didn’t care. For what it is worth, General US Grant up until the passing of the 13th amendment (well after the war) had 18 slaves of his own. Lee freed his before the war.

      So lets review. Why was there a war? Was it to end slavery? No. It was to prevent the successful and unchallenged succession of the South. The war started when the North invaded the South. The men of the Confederacy did not fight in the name of slavery. They fought to repel an invader. Just look at the state song of Maryland (whose legislature was arrested to prevent them from authorizing succession) “The Tyrant’s heel is at thy door, oh Maryland.” That is how the north was viewed. Not “Honest Abe’s here to steal your slaves, oh Maryland”

      You can argue all day long about the evils of slavery as an institution. You can cast aspersions on the reasons the South wanted to depart the Union. (two major: Threat to Slavery, Punitive Tariffs and restrictions on Southern commerce), but you cannot with any historical accuracy say the War was about slavery. It was about a State’s power and right to voluntarily leave the union it voluntarily joined. And it was about the defense by its citizens of that right when invaded by a nation of whom we were no longer a part. The meaning of that Confederate Battle Flag is indissolubly linked this fundamental fact. And though some have pressed it into the service of racial hatred and defamed it. The meaning, the heritage represented by that flag was, and is that of defiance in the face of tyranny…particularly the meddleings of the Federal Government in matters that belong to the purview of local and state governments, and to private citizens. It is a colorful unwelcome sign to the politicians and bureaucrats who want to change us by administrative or judicial degree or at gunpoint. It’s visual shorthand for give me liberty or give me death. That’s what it means. It is an emblem of respect for our ancestors and their heroic struggle and an enduring emblem of the sentiment expressed by the Revolutionary era Gadson Flag, “Don’t Tread On Me.” They mean almost exactly the same thing to us.

      And here’s the kicker…with respect to this forum. 1. The first shot at Fr. Sumpter had the honor of being fired by the daughter of the Governor and former ambassador to Russia. She had been born in Russia and was baptized as an Orthodox Christian. 2. There is at least one account (I cannot verify it…though I appreciate it) that St. Seraphim of Sarov appeared to Motovilof in a vision, coming down adamantly against Lincoln and requested Tsar Alexander send a particular icon of the Theotokos to President Jefferson Davis.

      The account follows here: “The Lord and the Mother of God not only do not like the terrible oppression, destruction and unrighteous humiliation that is being wrought everywhere with us in Russia by the Decembrists and raging abolitionists : the goodness of God is also thoroughly displeased by the offences caused by Lincoln and the North Americans to the slave-owners of the Southern States, and so Batiushka Father Seraphim has ordered that the image of the Mother of God the Joy of all who Sorrow should be sent to the President of the Southern – that is, precisely the slave-owning States. And he has ordered that the inscription be attached to it : TO THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF LINCOLN… ”[17] (Sergius and Tamara Fomin, Rossia pered Vtorym Prishestviem (Russia before the Second Coming), Moscow: Rodnik, 1994, vol. I, p. 343.) excerpted from Vladimir Moss.

      Think what you will of Mr. Moss, his source for this material is given….So unless the source material is mistaken, then the Mother of God, the Blessed Theotokos and St. Seraphim of Sarov were opposed to the actions taken by the North against the South. Being on the right side of history is one thing. Being on the right side of eternity is quite another. In any event, though we may disagree over how to interpret the history of our nation…as Orthodox Christians we belong a kingdom not of this world and should be at peace.

      • Nate Trost says

        In brief.

        1. You make a lot of assertions about history which are, to put it mildly, based in Southern fantasy. Jesus Christ Himself could descend to earth and tell you otherwise and you would deny Him, so I’m not going to bother arguing, but letting assertions go unchallenged is another matter.

        2. You are essentially putting forth a vision of the Mother of God giving each slave ship captain a high five as they step off the dock. Great religion you have there.

        3. “Give me Liberty of Give Me Death” is leaving out “as long as I have the right skin color, if they don’t, Give Me Death before I Give Them Liberty”.

        • Seraphim98 says

          Some interesting assertions of your own; “1. You make a lot of assertions about history which are, to put it mildly, based in Southern fantasy. Jesus Christ Himself could descend to earth and tell you otherwise and you would deny Him, so I’m not going to bother arguing, but letting assertions go unchallenged is another matter.”

          The history I shared is no fantasy, easily verifiable, and the one passed down to me from my ancestors. I will accept the version of my Confederate Veteran ancestors (at least 4 that I know of) rather than Johnny come lately pc revisionists. The history I share also comports with the history I learned in Grade School, Jr. High, High School, and College. I’ve also done my own independent reading from original sources and am satisfied the education I received was correct.

          “2. You are essentially putting forth a vision of the Mother of God giving each slave ship captain a high five as they step off the dock. Great religion you have there.”

          No…that’s your exaggeration. I shared a quote from Mr. Vladimir Moss, an Englishman, who provided a source for that quote. You may draw from it whatsoever conclusions you will. Either St. Seraphim delivered a message from the Theotokos or he didn’t. Either the reference is fictitious or it is genuine. If fictitious, then it is not more than a historical curiosity. If genuine and it casts doubts on how you have read and understood American History and the History of the South, that’s for you to wrestle with.

          “3. “Give me Liberty of Give Me Death” is leaving out “as long as I have the right skin color, if they don’t, Give Me Death before I Give Them Liberty”.” A calumnious assertion to be sure, but one rooted in a retreat to PC hysterics.

          You think the issue of slavery trumps everything. I do not. For me, the issue most important is that we were invaded and we fought back, defending ourselves. We lost the war for our independence, but that does not mean we are ashamed of it. Indeed there are aspects that I am quite proud of as a southerner. 1. By some miracle I don’t pretend to understand, most of Native American nations located within the South fought for the South. At least one of our generals was over half native American…of course to the US troops of that era, the only good indian was a dead indian. This is remarkable to me because Native Americans in many places in the South and elsewhere had been dealt with very badly by the US and State governments. Yet when it came time to choose sides…they chose the Confederate side.This at a minimum suggests something was exceedingly wrong in northern vistas.

          2. Moreover these tribes had representation in the Confederate Congress. Something that didn’t even get broached in the US congress until over a hundred years later.

          3. Our constitution also gave our President a line item veto which was useful in correcting excessive expenditures by spend happy legislators. The US government still doesn’t have that, thought it did finally write it into law only to have it struck down by it’s impeccable Supreme Court.

          4. We also had several thousand Black Confederate Soldiers, and I don’t mean slaves with shovels digging ditches. I mean both uniformed and volunteer soldiers. General Forrest, whom so many love to hate, offered freedom to slaves that fought with him…and they acquitted themselves valiantly. Gen Lee freed his slaves before the War, thought US Grant held onto his until the ink dried on the 13th amendment.

          The south’s dependance on slavery was deeply morally problematic…but the need for and the economic value of slavery was not in debate in any serious way North or South. Indeed much if not most of the abolitionist rankling was in border states among low and low middle class whites, whose children were at risk of being taken by unscrupulous bounty hunters as mixed run away slaves. It happened all too often and a number of those families were rightly terrified of the prospect. They lacked the fiscal and legal recourse to fight back effectively. So…absent any national rejection of slavery or its fruits North or South the question of the status of slaves or free blacks was not very prominent in the discourse leading to succession or the invasion of the South that followed. Instead, to the North, black lives only mattered as tactical tools to destabilize the South by hoping to foment slave insurrections behind the lines. All this modern handwringing over slavery did not matter to anyone in power back then, and not to most out of power. In the context of the times it is a non issue, a distraction. And I say this as a descendant of Irish slaves brutalized as bad or worse than black slaves of the time (we were a lot cheaper and more expendable). Fortunately my ancestor successfully escaped his cruel master.

          As for black slavery itself…as bad as it was, as morally suspect as it was…and at times with certain masters it was unspeakably cruel and brutal. That acknowledged, given the mindset concerning race of the time, given the economic conditions north and south, as desirable as freedom is and was, materially black slaves had it better than most of their poor white neighbors north or south. As a rule they had simple but adequate housing, clothing, food….even those who hated being slaves the most admitted they tended to be well fed…and they had medical care such as it was in that era slave or free. Even if the concern were purely economic, that is still something…a good slave was worth thirty or forty thousand dollars in today’s money…one did not endanger that investment unless one were an utter fool. Granted…in the European tradition going back to Aesop, half a meal in liberty was better than a full meal in captivity, and doubtless a great many slaves would have readily traded material security for freedom at even great cost. Still the material provision was there, and most of them, in that regard were better off. As was seen after the war, in the time of reconstruction, blacks that went north endured hardships and hatreds hardly remembered in this day and age…and in the south slavery essentially reconstituted itself in rent/lease rather than chattel form as sharecropping…an economic system that swept up a number of poor whites as well. (yes I’ve many old sharecroppers in my family tree). Indeed it was only in the context of the Korean War that my father was able to break out of that cycle through military service.

          So…I suppose all this is to say I know my history, I know its out workings in several generations of my own family. I know the good and I know the bad, and I’m not ashamed of my ancestors, their struggle, or their heritage, for in my eyes the good far outweighs the bad. Therefore I reject every invitation or directive out of hand that urges me to spit on them and deny them.

          The morality of the south’s dependance on slavery can be rightly debated. It was a system that needed to perish. But what cannot be denied is that Southerners had every expectation to believe they were free to leave a union they had voluntarily joined, regardless of the reason. It is that expectation of freedom and self determination I see represented in that flag. And the sight of it to me has nothing to do with slavery, or white power, or any other such thing. It is a remembrance of the valor and heroism of our ancestors, and a reminder to remain vigilant against any intrusion of the federal government into our lives. We shed blood once to be free. We can do so again if need be.

          This much I will grant you…my mind is set on this point and you don’t have anything to offer sufficient to dissuade me. And this much I will offer, If Christ Himself shows me this history otherwise than I have understood it, I will gladly defer to His wisdom and instruction.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Nate, there is no way that the Blessed Virgin would (or could) give a “high five” to every slaver as he landed in an American port as the Transatlantic slave trade had been abolished in 1800.

          I don’t know if this quotation from Motovilov is true but it wouldn’t surprise me if St Seraphim had had this vision. Why? Because the Theotokos loved slavery? Of course not! What a hellish idea!

          So why would European Christians, especially liturgical, traditionalist ones favor the South? Maybe because in Lincoln they saw another Cromwell, or a saner Robespierre, a man who favored nationalism to the exclusion of all else. (And he did do that: he was willing to keep blacks in a state of perpetual slavery as long as the Union remained intact. His words, not mine.)

          Because of our incompetent government schooling, we are only taught the Victor’s History, and then ineptly and incompletely at that. We aren’t told that the Vatican actually recognized the CSA or that during Jefferson Davis’ imprisonment, the Pope made a crown of thorns for Davis with his own hands.

          So what does this mean? That slavery should have remained?

          No. As I said earlier: perish the thought.

          Sometimes we have to look at history with a broader view. Consider: we all think that the Spartans who died at Thermopylae did history and Hellenism a service. Had the Persians prevailed at the subsequent battles you and I would not be abiding by democratic ideals. Christianity might not have spread beyond the confines of Judea. And so on.

          Yet we forget that the Spartans were horrible people who treated their helots far worse than the average slave-owner treated his slaves. Slaves –whether black or white–were an economic investment. The Spartans hunted the helots (my ancestors –I’m Messenian on my father’s side) for sport. The Persians were a humane empire, probably the first one.

          Consider: Cyrus the Great instituted the first enactment of religious freedom ever. The Persians committed no genocide (unlike the Israelites as recounted in the Book of Joshua). They ruled tolerantly. Hell, according to most historians,Alexander the Great killed more Greeks than the Persians ever did. And yet we admire Alexander as a world-transforming historical figure. And he was.

          Now, what happened to the world in the 20th century because America wasn’t allowed to form two states north of the Rio Grande?

          Well, for one thing, America became the richest, most powerful nation on earth in short order. And we became “progressive,” believing that the conquest of the South justified our militarism in God’s eyes. The US Army went on a rampage against the Plains Indians, gobbled up more territory and tore Spanish colonies away from their mother country.

          And then, worst of all, we invaded Europe just as the Great War of 1914 was winding down because of a stalemate in 1917. By injecting ourselves there we breathed new life into the Allied cause and then when we couldn’t win a decisive victory exacted an Armistice from the Germans. And to what end? Both Wilson and Churchill saw that the Carthaginian terms that the French placed on the Germans would incite a newer and more violent war.

          Our involvement caused nothing less than the Bolshevik revolution, the spread of Red Terror to Mexico, Spain, Hungary and other places and most ominously for us today, the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of interminable conflict in the Middle East.

          Maybe we should be more humble and recognize what evil American power has unleashed on the world, no matter how well-intentioned.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        The sad thing about this subject here on this particular blog, where George himself raises it in one form or another every few months, is that it injects this parochial Lost Cause weirdness (or solemn seriousness; take your pick) into matters concerning the Orthodox Christian faith.

        Every revanchist, every holder of national and racial grievances, seems to confound his attitudes and beliefs with religion, and to identify the Cause with the holy– and our own country’s Confederate version of these ancient European hatreds and resentments is no exception.

        So now and then Seraphim98 will emerge in the wake of these discussions and trump even George by his equation of the Confederacy with Orthodoxy. We know from experience that even the exaltation by the Confederate ideologues of slavery as the natural and eternal condition of the African does not faze him in the least.

        It wouldn’t matter at all except that it repeatedly undermines any moral force that this site otherwise musters, which is very unfortunate, indeed.

        • Seraphim98 says

          I do not make or see any equation of the Confederacy with Orthodoxy…though I do note some interesting overlaps and intersections.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      With respect to that American battle banner that bears the Cross of Saint Andrew, Father James writes,

      “This wretched flag is now rightly recognized as a symbol of evil and prejudice and violence. . . . And that’s just as true of the swastika, in case anyone is reading.”

      I hope they’re not.

      Anyway, no longer sells the Confederate battle flag.

      It still sells flags with the swastika.

      • Monk James says

        Patrick Henry Reardon (June 27, 2015 at 10:00 am) says:

        With respect to that American battle banner that bears the Cross of Saint Andrew, Father James writes,

        “This wretched flag is now rightly recognized as a symbol of evil and prejudice and violence….SNIP”

        I expected better from Father Patrick, but there’s the ninth beatitude again: Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they will never be disappointed.

        The fact that some people, like the KKK and other savages, have used any form of cross for their propaganda, whether that of Jesus or that of Andrew, does not legitimate either them or their symbols. They’ve misappropriated the christian symbol of the cross, and deserve no respect for that.

        When such miscreants raise an otherwise well known cross or flag, they and their symbols voluntarily (even if they don’t realize it) sink well below dignity.

        The confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice. No matter how gallantly the CSA armies and their soldiers fought and died for their cause, their cause was wrong, even evil.

        To symbolize that wrongful cause with a flag and somehow honor it a century and a half after its appropriate defeat is pointless and irritating to the United States of America and its loyal citizens.

        It’s just a tragedy that so much blood had to be shed to preserve the integrity of the USA and abolish slavery in America.

        May the Lord be merciful to all who fomented the conflict, who fought and died during that unnecessary, fratricidal, in human terms immensely costly ‘civil war’, ‘the ‘war of northern aggression’, ‘the recent unpleasantness’.

        Lord, save us through Your cross and resurrection.

        • George Michalopulos says

          And what about our injustices Monk James? Our insistence that other countries accept our feminazi abortion regime otherwise we’ll bomb them into submission? Is abortion a lesser sin than slavery? (Which was practiced since civilization began?_

          • Monk James says

            George Michalopulos (June 28, 2015 at 10:43 pm) says:

            And what about our injustices Monk James? Our insistence that other countries accept our feminazi abortion regime otherwise we’ll bomb them into submission? Is abortion a lesser sin than slavery? (Which was practiced since civilization began?_


            Non sequitur.

        • The confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice.

          So basically, if you are able to mount a successful propaganda campaign to trash any given thing in the public consciousness, that makes it true?

          The homofascists are on the verge of mounting such a campaign against the Church, so I trust that you will be renouncing your faith after they succeed? Because after all, the misinformed opinions of the masses are all that matter.

          • Monk James says

            Ages (June 29, 2015 at 1:53 pm) says:

            ‘The confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice.’

            So basically, if you are able to mount a successful propaganda campaign to trash any given thing in the public consciousness, that makes it true?

            The homofascists are on the verge of mounting such a campaign against the Church, so I trust that you will be renouncing your faith after they succeed? Because after all, the misinformed opinions of the masses are all that matter.

            Non sequitur.

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          Father James declares, “The confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice.”

          Well, that does seem to be the case for Father James.

          A similar case can be made with respect to the Cross itself: Two days after a Crusaders’ pogrom, one might readily have declared, “The Cross is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice.”

          Anyway, I live in a Yankee city now. I tend not to fly the Stars-and-Bars on my porch.

          I still love that flag, however, and I hope Father James’s prejudice against it won’t prompt me to love him less.

          • Monk James says

            There are a couple of serious gaps in logic here. As always, I expected better of Fr Patrick, but the Ninth Beatitude keeps coming to the fore.

            First, let’s understand that I am not prejudiced against the confederate flag. Prejudice, means pre-judging or forming an opinion before the facts are in. But I’m postjudiced! I’ve examined the facts, and I find that the confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice.

            Then there’s the logical slip of comparing the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ with the confederate flag. The cross was a revolting, repulsive symbol of shameful death many centuries ago, but was elevated to a sign of Christ’s victory when it was revealed to Constantine with the instruction to ‘Conquer by This’.

            There are various explanations for the medieval european crusades against Muslims (and orthodox Christians, for that matter), none of them able to justify the massive bloodshed which they entailed. If Muslims (understandably) regard Christ’s cross as now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice, that has to do only with their perception of its misappropriation.

            But the ‘Stars and Bars’ flag has no such blessed pedigree. It started as a symbol of rebellion against the unity of the USA. Our indivisible unity (that’s why we call ourselves ‘The UNITED States’) is a foundational concept even if it isn’t explicitly so identified in the Constitution. Amendments clarify those occasional opportunities for misunderstanding.

            But once the CSA found itself on the losing side of that horrible, godawful bloody fratricidal ‘civil’ war, its flags had best been retired to history books and museums and the noble (if wrong-headed) sons of the South who fought and died under those banners should be remembered with love and sorrow, but not glory. Glory doesn’t belong to traitors and seditionists.

            But those flags weren’t properly consigned to the custody of history. The ‘Stars and Bars’ in particular was misappropriated as a sort of comic index for people buying into the notion that former CSAers were all ignorant goofballs a la ‘Dukes of Hazzard’. Of course they’re not, but the media play a good joke for as long as it makes money.

            More malignantly, though, the confederate flag was/is raised again and again as a sign of rebellion against whatever NOW is considered ‘northern aggression’, especially and undeniably as it involves and tries to delay the social progress of american Blacks, Catholics, Jews — basically anyone but WASPs, preferably the Babdists. The confederate flag is now a symbol only of unspeakable injustice

            And for all that, I hope that our good Fr Patrick’s Christianity will — at least eventually — cure him of his confederatitis.

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              Good one, Mark James!
              But when today’s Americans speak positively of the flag of the Confederacy, they may not be speaking for the cause, the lost cause, but one is never quite sure of that.
              I’ll proffer an analogy: today’s Russians who wax nostalgic about the red flag, about Papa Stalin and to trot out there medals as Heroes of Soviet Labor and so forth. You can also probably find Germans of the previous generation in America who like to say things like,” after all Hitler did a lot for Germany!”
              From another point of view, one might opine that the Union army and the Confederate Army were both those wonderful militias protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!

              • 1. The ‘Lost cause’ / states’ rights interpretation of the Civil War was the invention of 20th century historians. When the seceding states ratified their articles of secession, they were all about SLAVERY and the potential for losing it under Lincoln – which was unacceptable. The heritage they were trying to protect was one of injustice
                2. South Carolina – and very likely other states, though I haven’t researched it – decided to exhibit the Confederate flag not until the Civil Rights Era of the 1950’s-1960’s. It was all about DEFYING the uppity blacks and the federal goverment which was attempting to protect their rights. It had NOTHING TO DO with maintaining or contining to honor southern ‘heritage.’ It had everything to do with maintaining the Jim Crow status quo.

                • 1. The ‘Lost cause’ / states’ rights interpretation of the Civil War was the invention of 20th century historians. When the seceding states ratified their articles of secession, they were all about SLAVERY and the potential for losing it under Lincoln – which was unacceptable. The heritage they were trying to protect was one of injustice


            • George Michalopulos says

              Even if we concede all your points for the sake of argument, you’ve elided over (or misunderstood) –and are in fact mis-stating–Fr Patrick’s point regarding the Cross. At no point does he execrate the symbol of our salvation. He merely states that many others (for historical reasons) do.

              Ergo, are we to take the opinion of an aggrieved who suffered under the Cross and universalize it as evil, simply because they do?

    • The South was already talking about how to end slavery in the early days of the Confederacy, so that they would be acknowledged by Britain and France as a nation. It would most likely have taken place naturally by 1890. It only cost upwards of a million lives and perpetual disharmony to make it happen 25 years earlier.

  16. Jim of Olym says

    I’ve stated this several times on several blogs, but I feel in my heart that we would be better off if we were separated into maybe five or six separate nations. After all we don’t constitute different realmsEastern,southern,midwest and far west,not to mention pacific northwest where i dwell.
    then we could have representative democracy. but Oh Well? the USA is not a ‘do-able’ country any more in my book.

  17. ReaderEmanuel says

    I think it’s funny that Michelle Obama isn’t saying, “All this for a damn flag” now. Her and her husband care more about what the Confederate flag USED to represent than what the Stars and Stripes do NOW…