This flag has become a symbol of the Confederate soldier, but also White resistance to federal tyranny and forced multiculturalism. The men who fought under it rejected the idea of multiculturalism and an empire to rule over them, instead supporting a movement that would allow them self determination. States Rights is a part of this ideology, but it must be understood within the context of the people at the time knowing that their racial extended family was part of an organic State, not just lines on a map.While not consciously, this seem to be in rebuttal to Lincoln's second inaugural, which makes reference to the causes of the Civil War as well.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.So which was it? Resistance to cultural annihilation or merely limiting slavery? Even though a lifelong admirer of Lincoln, like most Americans, I am struck that Lincoln is a bit disingenuous here. Restricting the expansion of slavery was only the first step that the abolitionist Republican party desired, and, through the course of the Civil War, abolition succeeded. But Heimbach is also a little off the mark because the Southern leadership knew they were fighting for the preservation of slavery in perpetuity. The South rightly saw the election of Lincoln as the beginning of the end for slavery and struck at the North while they thought the odds favored them. That they fought to perpetuate the evil of slavery cannot be glossed over in the defense of the flying of the Confederate flag; which Heimbach does not do.
But what of the dilemma of self determination within one's own group? African-Americans are still only partially integrated into the whole of American society. In San Francisco's Chinatown, the displacement of ethnic Chinese due to economic forces wrought by Airbnb has brought protest and angst, as the Chinese desire their own community. The success of Spanish language television is evidence of slowing integration of Hispanics into mainstream American society. When lower class whites self segregate it's called racism and when upper class whites do it, it is politely ignored or glossed over. We encourage every ethnic group except Europeans descendants to self-segregate in the name of multiculturalism. The balkanization of America seems inevitable as long as cultural marxists hold sway in leading the direction of America.
Further, there is scientific evidence that our brains are hardwired to be more accepting of people like ourselves. Tribalism is deeply embedded in our make up. So America has a natural barrier to overcome, and seems to have done so right up until the 1960s. At this point in history, it seems that our success is coming apart. Why? I feel as though we are not asking the right questions.
The right question to ask is, why were we successful in being absorbing other cultures into our society in the first place? The answer has to do with unspoken agreement about the nature of the culture and the relative numbers of people who were not part of it.
American culture and political theory derives from England. The American revolution was essentially an English one, in which the colonists objected to the impositions of the crown, because they violated their rights as Englishmen. The nation was founded with a language and culture inherited from England, perhaps Great Britain. Its institutions and the logic of its judiciary were inherited from English experience with separation of powers. Over time, new immigrants were expected to accept this regime, learn English and assimilate. Rather than from a set of universalist beliefs, our nation is founded on a particular set of beliefs about our rights that derive from our English cultural antecedents. I discussed the difference between universal and national rights in a prior post.
Additionally, like it or not, there seems to be a genetic component to political belief and one's view of rights. This leads me to conclude that the current antipathy to the Anglo-centric European view of limited government can be traced in part to the increased immigration from nationalities unfriendly towards that view of government. This has been exacerbated by an increased leftism among white people who some feel guilty over the dominance that European peoples have had over the rest of the world. The left has turned against the culture of their forefathers and sought alliance with immigrants from lands hostile to American and European hegemony. This explains in part the left's support for open borders. (Libertarians in favor of open borders are deluded into thinking that all cultures are amenable to concepts of limited government, when this desire is in fact limited to a very few nationalities.)
It is in this context that I have to re-examine my long time dislike of the Confederate battle flag. While it has the taint of slavery, it is also the most recognizable expression of a desire to preserve and Anglo-centric European culture in America. In my view, it is a culture worth preserving because it gave us the founding fathers, and somewhat paradoxically, Lincoln; and the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever seen. As I quote very often, Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. American traditional culture is all of that, which makes it worth preserving.
As to why were we successful for a while and no longer seem to be? I lay the failure at the doorstep of feminism and leftism, really the same things. We started telling ethnic groups that they no longer needed to assimilate and rewarded them for not doing so. We started bringing in massive numbers of immigrants from cultures whose values were inimical to our own. We started undermining traditional societal roles, undermining social cohesion. We started undermining the white middle class through globalism and mass immigration. We undermined white middle class by undermining marriage through feminist doctrine. We started undermining social cohesion by an assault on our society's traditional belief in Christianity. As a result of these assaults, many people in American society no longer see themselves as Americans, but as some "other" such as Black, Hispanic, or Muslim. Given that a larger number of Americans self-identify this way, and given the power of identity, is it any wonder that the idea of America is being overthrown?
But ultimately, the rights of people as individuals and their rights as members of groups are on a collision course. Given the large numbers of whites in the country, I can only see conflict ahead if a sense of national identity is not restored. So whites have a reasonable right to fly the confederate flag in protest against an organized attempt to marginalize their culture. But isn't the answer.
What is needed is a counter-synthesis to the prevailing synthesis of leftism and traditionalism that governs our culture. This is why there is an alt-right that looks at these issues not through the prism of policy or law, but through the perspective of cultural heritage that is biologically inherited. The problem still to be solved is how to assimilate those who lack the genetic propensity to accept the cultural and political norms that founded the nation; and how to ostracize and defeat the traitorous left that seeks to destroy the most successful culture the world has ever seen.