This video was taken yesterday outside of an establishment created to foster understanding, creativity and yes…expression. However type of expression has many negative and absolutely hateful associations and should not be tolerated. Young people don’t forget why this should not be tolerated! As for the black woman in the video…yes, the one who is proudly waving the flag…..of all examples to set….why this one?? The choice to do something in public is a choice that only you can make….but please, help me understand why you needed to wave THAT flag in public!!??
Today I completed a rough draft of an essay on John Christopher Winsmith and his servant Spencer for the NYTs Disunion column. Winsmith’s letters are incredibly rich and help to sketch a constantly evolving master – slave dynamic during the first sixteen months of the war. As a teaser consider the following reference to Spencer accompanying Winsmith on picket duty in northern Virginia in September 1861:
I took Spencer along to carry my knapsack [etc], and Ralph and I with him stopped at a house on the road, and drying ourselves thoroughly had a most delightful rest. Sunday just after daylight we left and joined to Regt. Then we proceeded to Upton’s Hill in sight of Munsin’s to do picket duty. The enemys lines are not so near the former as the latter place, and therefore our men got no shots at the Yankees. The view was fine, and just such as I have described in a former letter as having enjoyed from Munsin’s. Occasionally in the distance we could see the Yankees moving about, but no fight occurred during our stay.
This is the only time that Winsmith acknowledges this role in his letters, though I suspect it was quite common among officers at least during the early stages of the war. One wonders how many of these Yankee sightings of black men in Confederate ranks were of this nature.
U.S. District Court Judge Samuel Wilson said he would likely rule on the city of Lexington’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Sons of Confederate Veterans Stonewall Brigade in “one to two weeks.” The Sons have maintained all along that a Lexington ordinance banning all flags from city flagpoles except the city’s, the commonwealth’s, and the U.S. flag, specifically targeted them. Lawyers for the Sons said the flagpoles were a “designated public forum,” therefore the Constitution protected the Sons, and most any others who requested to fly flags from city flagpoles. Attorneys for the city said the ordinance was “government speech,” essentially saying that since it was Lexington’s flagpoles, the city could choose which groups represent its brand and which ones didn’t. Sons of Confederate Veterans Stonewall Brigade leader, Brandon Dorsey, said: “I think in this case city council made it abundantly clear that the reason why they were trying to shut [the use of the flagpoles] off from us was because they didn’t like the flags and didn’t like [our] group.” Lexington city officials declined to comment after the hearing.
So, what are the implications for this case? If the judge decides against the city the Sons of Confederate Veterans will get to display the flag in downtown Lexington and if the judge decides in favor of the city the SCV gets to display the flag in downtown Lexington.
The book should be available in a matter of a few weeks, but you can now read the entire first chapter and snippets of the rest at Google Books. The first chapter focuses on the battle itself and pays specific attention to how Confederates assessed having to fight black soldiers. Other blogger/authors have expressed their frustration about these previews and I am certainly sympathetic. That said and apart from the legal issues involved I am not too concerned. In fact, I don’t think it will have much of an impact, if any, on sales. Times are tough for many people and if those interested can at least get a taste of what is in the book than I am happy. Ultimately, I wrote the book for it to be read and to stimulate discussion and hopefully lead to some understanding of this event.
I am pleased to see that the first chapter is previewed in its entirety. It covers material that has led to some pretty heated debates on this blog and has even reinforced the belief in a small number of people that my motivations for writing are based on a hatred of all things southern. Yes, how silly. The nice thing about a book is that you have to lay it all on the line. I did my best to interpret the battle based on the evidence collected and my thorough reading of relevant secondary sources. Ultimately all interpretations are incomplete and subject to correction.
The 67-year-old Sakoguchi recalls seeing the labels on crates outside his parents’ small grocery store in San Bernardino. Years later, while scouring swap meets near his home, he discovered that the 10-by-11-inch images had become coveted collectibles. Sakoguchi experimented with the format and found that the pastoral elements of the labels made it easier to tackle controversial topics, including AIDS and 9/11. “When I paint with these labels,” he says, “it’s disarming, no matter the subject. People don’t want to be lectured about politics or race, so I use images and colors that soften the blow.”