ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 

 
THE DEAD MAN'S FLAG


As I have pointed out before, when I was a senior editor of the Partisan, they decided to be Shrewd. Instead of backing the diagonal flag all living Southerners recognize, some at the magazine proposed that the Partisan back a square flag. All they ever showed from then on was the blocky, ugly square flag.

The Partisan did end up backing the flag we had, but their constant cries of "Navy Jack!" did us a lot of harm, and liberals gratefully took up that cry.

You see, said the Partisan, the Klan waved the diagonal flag, so they would give that up and ask for a square flag, the 1860's-style battle flag.

Others have proposed other flags.

But the NAACP doesn't want any of them, so what's the point, except to begin the surrender process?

Back to the real world. In the Year of Our Lord 2000, there are no square flags flying over the heads of any living human beings. Every flag on earth is DIAGONAL, except Nepal's, which is shaped like snake's tongue. The square flag is a period piece, a flag that was carried by men long dead.

If the flag is merely a memorial, with no meaning for modern Southerners, then it should be square. It should also be pure cotton, made in the South, and so forth. It should be, in short, a relic.

And that is exactly what will fly behind the Confederate Monument: a hidden Dead Man's Flag.

For those who are only interested in the South as a memorial, this is just fine. But the simple fact is there is no place in modern America for Southern memorials. We have a Politically Correct national religion, a single culture, called "Multiculturalism," which has been formulated by professors and planners and changes daily according to the feelings of Federal judges. No Southern memorial will last.

Just as everybody's property is nobody's property, everybody's culture is nobody's culture. For those who consider the Confederate flag to be a Dead Man's Flag anyway, this hardly matters.

But those of us who live in the real world know that there is no place for anything Southern in modern American society. We are a nation or we are nothing.

 

DEMOCRATS OF PRINCIPLE

 

The only reason conservative Republicans have ever had any influence inside their own party was because they could point to Democrats of principle.

At the 1948 Republican convention, moderates and liberals once again took the party away from the conservative majority and nominated Dewey over Taft. Republican conservatives all took that kick in the teeth and came up smiling and backing Dewey.

The only time Republicans ever won nominating a moderate was when they nominated a war hero or the Democrats went far, far left. So they lost with Dewey.

Over at the Democratic Convention of 1948, Southern Democrats got kicked in the teeth and marched out. Many of them might have backed Taft. With Dewey, they backed the hopeless but principled candidacy of Strom Thurmond. Not one single Northern Republican offered to join them. So moderates and liberals would rule Republicanism for almost two generations, until they made the switch to get Reagan Democrats to vote Republican.

In 1964, we Goldwater Republicans could point to conservative Democrats who were willing to desert the party of their fathers if the Republicans went conservative. Later, they became Reagan Democrats. In 1964, when Goldwater faltered, there was talk of a Wallace third party candidacy. If Goldwater had lost the California primary, there would have been a moderate or Rockefeller nominated.

But if Wallace had been the only conservative left, and Rockefeller had been nominated, how many Republican conservatives might have lined up behind Wallace? Probably practically none. Only Democratic conservatives have ever put principle above party. No matter how near the Democrats they went, moderate and respectable conservative Republicans could always depend on absolutely slavish Republican loyalty.

 

THE APPOMATTOX COMPROMISE

 

Robert E. Lee was an honest man, and no modern conservative. He would say that he SURRENDERED at Appomattox. He demanded no conditions. But since Grant unilaterally showed some mercy to the Confederates, modern conservatives would say he COMPROMISED.

On April 9, 1865, General Lee reached what a modern conservative would call a compromise with Union General US Grant. On the one hand, Lee's country ceased to exist, all the principles of the South were lost, the South was condemned to Reconstruction for twelve years and permanent inferiority within the Union. But Grant, on his own, let Lee keep his sword and he let Lee's men keep their horses, and Lee was convinced he was dealing with decent, honorable people.

Lee said later that, if he had known what was in store, he would never have surrendered.

So Appomattox was what today's conservatives would call a compromise. It was the sort of compromise that won half the world for the Communists. They had a regular policy called, "Two steps forward, one step back." They would seize something or demand something, and then the "useful idiots" ruling the West would compromise with them, giving them half of what they had seized or demanded. If socialism hadn't been such a silly economic proposition, they could have ruled the world that way.

So now we have an Appomatox Compromise on the Confederate flag. We got what the legislature would have given us if the Republican Party had never existed in South Carolina. And even that worthless compromise won't last, as we all know. The liberals demanded two steps forward this time, but only got the first step by this "compromise." They'll get the second, as they always do.

And then there's the overarching "compromise" that probably made the United States unsalvageable. This is the one where people tell us that Republicans may sell us out all the time, but one must "compromise." You have to give Republicans your vote no matter what they do to us.

I got into this business fighting Rockefeller Republicans. According to today's conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans were right. They said that Rockefeller Republicans were "more conservative" than the Democrats, so we should have supported them. But if we had, they would still control the party.

If we always support someone who is "more conservative," no matter what, we will lose everything. We will elect people who will go along with the liberal "two steps forward, one step back." That is, after all, exactly what the "more conservative" strategy is all about. It means compromising ourselves to death.

We are getting messages from people who want to vote for turncoats on the flag because they are Republicans, and are "more conservative."

If South Carolina Democratic legislators, particularly in districts now controlled by Republicans, find they can get our vote against traitors, they will become more conservative, too. So will the Republicans. But if we give our votes to the traitors, both parties will move left, as they have been doing.

If you vote for any traitor, you are asking both parties to move left. And in real world politics, you get what you ask for.

In the politics of the real world, if Republicans can say, "conservatives have nowhere else to go," all their efforts will be dedicated to be being accepted and praised by liberals and moderates.

Let me repeat this for the hundredth time: in politics, you get no more than you ask for. If all you ask for is that someone be a little more conservative than the other side, your time would be better spent learning to accept total defeat.

 

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU
Home
Current Articles
Article Archive
Whitaker's World View
World View Archives
About Bob Whitaker
Contact Bob
Links
Privacy Policy


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of weekly site updates:

E-Mail:
 Subscribe
 Unsubscribe

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org