Editorial: Debate warranted, councilman’s actions are not
Published: April 25, 2009
The St. Andrew’s Cross, best known for adorning the Confederate Battle Flag, stirs many emotions. Depending upon which side of history you’re standing and often the color of your skin, the emotions can be quite different. For some, it represents regional pride, honor, bravery and sacrifice. For many others, it represents hatred, bigotry, failure and terror.
There’s no question the image is an important part of our history. Some say just because hate groups hijacked it many years after the end of the Confederate States of America, it shouldn’t be removed from public use.
Others say the history it represents is far too incendiary to allow it to remain a part of today’s culture. It is an image adopted by such hate-mongering groups as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis and other white supremacist groups.
Few outside of our region can fully understand the strong emotions on both sides of this debate. It is a debate that has raged in the South for decades. From Ole Miss football games to the South Carolina statehouse to the state flag of Georgia, the St. Andrew’s Cross has fueled heated arguments that continue today.
Just a few weeks ago, students around Auburn University flew the flag proudly on the backs of cars, pick-up trucks and at several gatherings as part of the now-unofficial celebration of Old South Week. It’s worth noting that these students were white and it is likely that many of their black classmates were offended.
Clearly, public discourse over the waning use of this image is worthy of attention.
But the way the Rev. Arthur Dowdell chose to enter the debate is far from appropriate and beneath the office of city councilman. His actions Thursday afternoon were inexcusable and did damage to those who share his side of the debate over the flag.
A group of women, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, placed small Confederate flags on the graves of some of their forefathers in historic Pine Hill Cemetery, something they have done this time of year for more than 50 years. The women were preparing the graves for Monday’s Confederate Memorial Day, a holiday that is still recognized as an official state holiday.
But this year, Dowdell happened to be driving by to take his daughter to school.
He stopped his vehicle, entered the cemetery and snatched the flags off of the graves as the women watched in disbelief.
Dowdell later said, “If I had my way, I would have broke them (the flags) all up and stomped on them and burned them. That flag represents another country, another nation.”
Dowdell then went on to say that he would make certain the flags would never be placed there again.
The flag may rightfully offend Dowdell. It is certainly understandable that a black person would find the flag offensive, just as it is understandable that a Jewish person would find a Swastika offensive. But he’s wrong on at least two fronts.
First, like what it represents or not, it is part of this nation’s history, however ugly.
Second, no one should have the right to snatch something off of a grave placed there by a relative, especially an elected official.
If Dowdell wants the flags removed, he should have operated within the proper channels.
He’s a city councilman. This is a city cemetery.
Dowdell’s actions have done nothing to advance the debate over the appropriateness of the flag.
They’ve done nothing to ensure that they will no longer be placed there.
They’ve done nothing to help people on either side of this issue find common ground. All they’ve done is divide, stir emotions and create controversy.
A minister and an elected official should know better than to approach this issue in such fashion.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
New England was in the process of secession when the war of 1812 ended. It threatened secession several times, I believe and even had a “convention” for that end. Secession was recognized as a legitimate right by every state until Lincoln “re-structured” the Constitution to provide for an “eternal Union”. In the North, the right of Southern states to secede was recognized well into the war - which is why Lincoln had to ‘arrange’ to have the South fire the first shots at Fort Sumter by betraying the arrangement made by the federal government with the government of South Carolina. Lincoln later wrote to the captain of the ship he had sent to reinforce Sumter (after saying that no such ship would be sent) and congratulated him for bringing about the war that Lincoln wanted.
Believe NOTHING of what you’ve been told of Lincoln. It is all a myth and a lie from his anti-slavery and pro-black attitude (he held neither) to his kindness to his honesty to his rhetoric which was good, but false. The side that fought for a government “of, by and for” the People was the Confederacy, NOT the Union.
Lincoln’s death made him into a martyr and we are not permitted by his acolytes and historians in general (with a few brave exceptions) to give even the slightest objective look at his life and his works. If the people writing “history” were honest, Lincoln would be categorized as America’s worst war criminal with the blood of almost a million Americans - men, women and children - on his hands. But, alas, apparently his worshipers refuse to allow even the most superficial examination of “the REAL Lincoln”; you have to go to economist Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo to learn anything worth learning.
Abraham Lincoln declared in his First Inaugural Speech on March 4, 1861:
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”
Abraham Lincoln said he started the War only to collect taxes and not to interfere with slavery, at all, one month before he invaded Charleston Harbor with 11 armed warships to occupy Fort Sumter, a tax collection fort; therefore, the only possible cause of the War was to collect taxes from Southerners.
Southerners paid over 80% of the Federal taxes, almost all import taxes, and the North received 80% of the tax revenue to subsidize Northern bankers and inefficient Northern industry. That is why it is called a protective tariff. Lincoln promised, if elected, to raise the import tax on Southerners to over 40% from the current 20% and did so in the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.
Every person in the South, slave or free, that bought an iron frying pan, stove, plough, shovel, boiling pot, musket, etc. would have to pay over 40% import tax, if bought from Europe, or 40% more in price, if bought from Northern manufacturers. The Southern states were escaping from Lincoln’s oppressive taxes. South Carolina had already threatened to withdraw from the Union in 1828 when Congress passed the “Tariff of Abominations”, which also raised taxes on the Southern people from 20% to 40%, but the North backed down and returned the tax rate to 20%. Lincoln repeated this tax gouging in 1861 and invaded the Southern States only to collect his oppressive tax for his rich industrial supporters in the North, who worked eight year old children 16 hours a day for pennies and made them sleep in the street.
Why doesnt Mr. Dowdell use all of his excess energy for teaching illiterate children, help someone find a job, better yet, why doesnt he give blood, or help the food bank, he could be a mentor! I just cant figure why someone in his position, isnt doing something for the good of the community instead of causing chaos and upset. Get your head out of your butt and get over yourself Arthur, get off your high horse and come on back down to Alabama and remember where you come from! A ‘professional title’ doesnt make you a good person, Mr. Dowdell, you have to do good things to help people out and always be upstanding, and understanding of differences and being respectful and open to those differences.
I think dowdell should learn live with the fact that sometimes our feelings are going to get hurt and we all at one point or another are going to be offended. dowdell commented that they can have one day like everybody else. what about black history MONTH, I’d say that was a little longer than a day. I have no problem with black history month but I can’t understand why there is not any room for confederate history for some people to honor there ancesters. I bet dowdell would be surprised at how many blacks faught for the south, and not because they were forced to, but because they did not want to change there lifestyle. I bet a lot of people get offended when they see Malcolm-X t-shirts or even Martin Luther King t-shirts but no one is trying to stop them from being worn or displayed. I see alot blacks wearing the African flag or the colors that represent African heritage, now if whites cannot be allowed to display there heritage, then blacks, hispanics, japanese, chinese, or anyone else for that matter, should not be allowed to either. I think what applies to one should apply to everyone but then you start stepping on everyones constitutional rights. We live in a country that was founded on IN GOD WE TRUST, but that offends some people so I guess what dowdell is saying is no one including himself should be able display anything about GOD or JESUS because it might offend someone. May GOD bless each and everyone that believes in him and refuses to let him die because it might offend someone else.
How dare you compare OUR ANSESTORS to “United Daughters of Terrorist”. you also say they were a different contry, they were. we were attacked by the North with no reason other then greed. but diffrent contry or not! they were Brothers!
Simply put, this is not a “history” issue; it is not a “heritage” issue; it is not a personal, subjective viewpoint issue; IT IS A FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees our “God given rights” of FREEDOM of SPEECH, EXPRESSION and THOUGHT, Councilman Dowdell. It also guarantees the right to personal property. On the other hand, Councilman Dowdell, the Constitution does NOT guarantee freedom from BEING OFFENDED - so you don’t have a proverbial leg to stand on in your crusade to make yourself the determining power over the rights of your fellow citizens.
What the flag means to you is unimportant. What the flag has been used for in the past is unimportant. What you think about this matter is unimportant. The only important thing for you to remember is that you are not ABOVE the law and those whom you have persecuted by vandalizing the graves of their honored ancestors are not BELOW the law.
Remember, the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. If you trash the Constitution, it is YOUR protection that is removed and the very thing that you say you fear and hate will be free once again to do what you fear and hate.
To gain respect, you must give respect. Respect your fellow citizens and they will respect you. Spit in their faces and deface their hallowed graves and you have repudiated your right to demand anything - including respect.
I doubt if Mr. Dowdell had polietly asked these “ladies” to remove their flags that thy would have done so. I doubt if his bringing the issue to a council meeting would have garnered this healthy debate.
Mr. Dowdell is absolutely correct - the confederate flag DOES represent “another country, another nation.“ Not only that, but it also represents a country that waged war against the United States of America.
Even though they have the right, would we allow “United Daughters of Terrorist” place flags in our city or make a “Terrorist Memorial Day” a state holiday? I think NOT!
I can not understand why someone would continue to honor a misguided and failed holy war, especially when they know doing so offends many people. I see nothing to gain unless the intention is to offend.
It’s Disappointing to see someone in his position react without even willing to accept that the flags might possibly stand for something other than what he thinks. As a Reverend, he should know that people have taken the Bible out of context and used it for ideas and movements that are far from being in line with scripture. I am pretty sure that he will still use his Bible on Sunday morning.
Now to be the Devils advocate. How do you think the city of Auburn and Opelika would respond if the council members would have said to Mr. Dowdell. “Well he’s black he just doesn’t understand”. There would be a tremendous uproar. So he really should apologize for stating that the white council members don’t understand simply because they are white. How can he represent the people of his ward when it seems to be that it’s his way or no way. To get to his position he must have been a respected man but in this situation I would say I am disappointed in the mans actions and pray he will do what is right.
The editorail is pretty much right, Downdell and no one else has any right to desecrate a grave for any reason. In addition, there is no legitimate reason to try to stop these veterans’ graves from being honored in the future. That’s just plain bigotry and clearly wrong. Leave the cemetery and the UDC alone.
Advertisement