Al Mackey recently made a blog post about the Sand Creek massacre by yankee troops in the WBTS. I do not recall him condemning this atrocity at all in his post. Now he decides that he must post a very biased article about the Confederate flag and slavery– Why You Can’t Separate The Confederate Flag from its History at http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/why-you-cant-separate-the-confederate-flag-from-its-history/
This is not Mackey’s original work but rather a re-blog and paste of one Jarrett Ruminski’s blog posts at http://thatdevilhistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/why-you-cant-separate-the-confederate-flag-from-its-history/ who claims to be a historian with PHD credentials.
let’s copy and paste Mr. Ruminski’s comments at Mackey’s blog —
jarretr · August 1, 2014 – 4:02 pm · Reply→
Thanks for re-blogging the post, Al. Regarding the issue of blaming the United States for slavery: historians have written exhaustively on this topic. I’ve covered it on several past posts on my blog, including this post: http://thatdevilhistory.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/slaverys-legacy-why-race-matters-in-america/.
So the idea that historians don’t assign a fair amount of “blame” to the U.S. for slavery is utter nonsense and demonstrates that people who make such a claim have not read the wealth of historical scholarship produced over the last FIFTY years or so.
Secondly, to Josephine’s point: “It is really hard to respect what you all write when you ignore the facts about the USA Flag while like a bully constantly pound away at the Confederate Flag.” This is a version of the “two wrongs make a right argument.” As I noted in my post, the U.S. Constitution was indeed a pro-slavery document. But what makes the Confederacy unique is the the fact that it tried to end the sectional debates over slavery by creating a new country in which slavery would be legally defended forever. That’s called being on the wrong side of history, and the Confederacy is guilty-as-charged.
One of the tiring things about having any discussions about the Rebel flag’s legacy is that neo-Confederates don’t do primary research. Notice how in my post I highlight sections from the Confederate Constitution to show how it explicitly defended slavery. Further, in other posts, I’ve covered the Southern Secession commissioners who flocked across the South in 1860-61 to convince border South states to secede alongside the Deep South. Their speeches were FILLED with vile, white supremacist rhetoric, and they made clear that the Confederacy was formed to protect slavery. Mississippi secession commissioner William Harris,for example, told a Georgia audience that, “Our fathers made this government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race.” This new [Lincoln] administration comes into power, under the solemn pledge to overturn and strike down this great feature of our Union…and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races.”
It’s this kind of primary source rhetoric that neo-Confederates just don’t talk about. Read more at my previous post: http://thatdevilhistory.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/big-government-and-race-an-american-saga/. And if you want full transcriptions of the secession commissioners’ speeches, see this sight: http://civilwarcauses.org/commish.htm or read Chrles Dew’s book, “Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War” (University of Virginia Press).
Finally, regarding my calling SCV-types “historically illiterate bubbas.” Perhaps I’m guilty of a bit of crassness there. On the other hand, if the shoe fits, I’m not afraid to make the wearer try on the right size.
Thanks again for the cross-post, Al.
– Jarret Ruminski
I will be going there later but right now I have other issues to address.