Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why the Chattanooga Mayor’s Plans to Stop Upkeep of Confederate Cemetery is Misguided

Why the Chattanooga Mayor’s Plans to Stop Upkeep of Confederate Cemetery is Misguided

From statues to cemeteries

http://newschannel9.com/embed/news/local/african-american-soldiers-actual-grave-found-at-confederate-cemetery

There is a deserved reverence that applies across the board for the men and women who gave their lives, many, unwillingly for a cause they may or may not have championed. Alas…

Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke announced Friday plans to “renounce its position as a trustee” of a local Confederate Cemetery.

According to the Times Free Press:

“Our action today makes it clear that the City of Chattanooga condemns white supremacy in every way, shape and form,” Berke said in the release.

“While we honor our dead, we do not honor the principle for which they fought. Our city should be invested in our future, not a discredited past. Confederates fought against America to preserve slavery. That is the truth, and we should no longer subsidize any myths to the contrary.”

The release states the city is not on the deed for the land, but Berke also has asked City Attorney Wade Hinton to file paperwork to confirm Chattanooga is the city is no longer listed as one of the cemetery trustees.

Hinton said the city has allowed the Sons of Confederate Veterans to make repairs to the cemetery under the assumption the city owned the property. A review of records showed “this does not appear to be the case,” Hinton said.

Also buried in the cemetery are the remains of African American soldier Shaderick Searcy, whose grave was finally located last year. But I suppose his legacy is of no consequence or will be ignored because it doesn’t quite jive with the social justice mold.

Berke doesn’t seem to understand ignoring history won’t change what transpired, nor does the delusion required to pretend something doesn’t exist prove helpful in achieving any manner of progress.

The country’s largest memorial cemetery in Arlington is the final resting place of hundreds of Confederate soldiers. Should their graves be forsaken, too?

One of the better lessons on handling white supremacy and preserving a right historical balance comes to us from France. Just outside of Bayeux, France is the La Cambe German war cemetery. It’s a meticulously maintained and well-preserved piece of World War II history.

Following the war, the French and Germans sought to establish six German cemeteries in Normandy. The remains of more than 21,000 German soldiers are interred at La Cambe. Some share graves as they shared the fox holes from which they breathed their last. The Germans raise money to pay for the upkeep of these cemeteries and without being lectured on perpetuating hate and racism.

La Cambe is a somber but necessary part of the cultural and historical fabric of northern France and a never-ending reminder of the blood cost of freedom.

Yet when we venture back stateside, the social justice delusion would rather create a false sense of safety from an offensive past rather reflect on our scars and enjoy the progress we’ve made in advancing the cause of individual liberty.

One fringe protest in Charlottesville sparked a national wave of progressive revisionism, all under the guise of an argument no one is making. No one, aside from a minuscule group, is arguing the Confederacy’s cause was just nor is there anyone arguing white supremacy is right or morally justifiable.

You do not have to condone slavery or racism to understand the devastating effects of taking an eraser to this country’s undeniable history.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Where was the outrage over the Confederacy during the obama administration?

What is the impact of the following if true?

US Public law 85-425 Section 410

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) is amended:

(3) Section 432 is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new
subsection:
“(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term
‘veteran’ includes a person who served in the military or naval forces
of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the
term ‘active, military or naval service’ includes active service in such
forces.” “

I’m curious to compare the mayor’s outrage (such as it was) over the murder of armed forces recruiters in his city by an islamic terrorist to his current apoplexia over long dead Confederate soldiers.

    Old0311 in reply to MTED. | August 21, 2017 at 12:35 am

    I don’t remember any outrage, but my short term mem

    The Packetman in reply to MTED. | August 21, 2017 at 9:31 am

    In his defense, he was outraged by the attack but hewed closely with the ‘don’t push back against those poor, misunderstood Muslims’ line that Democrats spewed.

    He’s doing what all Democrats are doing … taking advantage of some moral outrage over a non-issue.

I am reminded of the video’s of the British war graves in Libya being desecrated, and nobody was shocked. The grace of a civilization is how they handle the graves of their soldiers or the graves of the vanquished foe’s.

This principle goes back to Homer’s Iliad – Achille’s disgraceful treatment of the body of his enemy, Hector, is deemed to be an offense to the Gods themselves, and is looked on with disgust by both sides.

Or to put it more plainly, respect for the dead, no matter what views they held while living, has been a fundamental principal of civilized people as long as their have been civilized people.

So the Germans and Japanese are going to dig-up the graves at WW II American cemeteries in those countries?

And have the Egyptians started tearing down all those pyramids built by Jewish slaves?

Such malignant b.s. on the part of these people.

    I agree with your sentiments, but the dates of the construction of the major pyramids don’t line up with any of the possible dates of the Hebrews’ sojourn in Egypt. Most people (who believe the Exodus happened) place it somewhere in the 1400s-1200s BC, while the bulk of the major pyramids were constructed hundreds of years before or after. Not trying to be rude; just wanted to make that clarification. 🙂

James_teh_2nd | August 20, 2017 at 10:11 pm

The mayor’s views are reflected in his training I think. His city profile (rather verbose) offers some insight.

http://www.chattanooga.gov/mayors-office

    Oh lookie, an email address.

    Your right his profile does offer some insight. It proves he is nothing but a craven POS politician something we have an overabundance of.
    From the mayor’s web page about his family beginnings:
    “From assisting someone who was discriminated against for his military service to talking to someone who just needed some advice, the Berke family law practice worked to make someone’s life better.”
    Is he not discriminating against people because of their military service?

    Yacantfoolme in reply to James_teh_2nd. | August 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    There is a lot of smoke there that could be used for concealment. The old adage “where there is smoke there is fire” appears to be applicable.

While we honor our dead, we do not honor the principle for which they fought.

The cemetery isn’t a burying ground for principles.

This is just the #Chattanooga Mayor’s Announcing Leftist’s Plan 2 DESECRATE Confederate Cemetery with an Open Season 4 Leftist Fascists like AntiFa 2 Defile.

Shame on Chattanooga Tennessee

    The Packetman in reply to mathewsjw. | August 21, 2017 at 9:39 am

    Careful now … Chattanooga hosts the longest-running Armed Forces Day parade in the country.

    This is the puke mayor making noise … the city council hasn’t weighed in and I’m sure he’ll try to get a court judgment before even asking them.

    02sbxstr in reply to mathewsjw. | August 21, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Can you grow up enough to use English words instead of teen-age short cuts. Would give you more credence in the adult world.

The most horrendous problem with this whole mess is that people are almost totally ignorant of one of the most important periods of our history, the Civil War of 1861. The Civil War was never really fought to free the slaves. The ethical issue of how to deal with slavery was part of the reason for the birth of the Confederate States of America, but it was by no means a truly significant reason for the war.

The states which succeeded to form the Confederacy did so because of the power struggle going on between the industrialized Nouthern states and the agricultural Southern states. In the 1850s, the USA was not seen as a single nation composed of lesser jurisdictions, states. It was seen as a voluntary federation, with a weak central government, composed of strong, independent states. This was true among the Northern States as well as the South [this is the reason why the WAr was fought with state militias, on both the North and South, rather than by large numbers of federal troops]. Interests in the North were trying to increase their influence in Congress in order to pass legislation which would be advantageous to their interests. This could be directly affected by the entry of territories as new states. IF they entered allied with Northern interests, then Congress could pass legislation which would positively affect those interests. And those in the South were afraid that the Northern interests would gain enough power to finally inflict heavy tariffs upon foreign trade which would adversely affect the Southern Economy. The issue of legalized slavery was used to affect whether the new state would enter in alliance with the North or the South and was, therefor, a hot topic of the time.

When the Southern states realized that the population advantage, which the Northern states enjoyed, gave those states an advantage which would insure that a majority of any new states would enter the Union in alliance with the Northern interests, several of the Southern states seceded from the United States of America and formed the Confederate States of America. This was all perfectly legal. Nowhere in the Constitution was there any clause which prohibited a state from seceding from the Union. But, it caused big trouble for the Northern expansionist leaders, including Abraham Lincoln. Having the Southeastern half of the US in the hands of another sovereign state would make clear claim on any western territory a matter of contention. This would negatively impact the theory of Manifest Destiny. It could also give the European powers increased influence in the central North American continent. Therefor, the Confederacy could not be allowed to stand. So, the USA refused to remove its troops from Fort Sumter, which was clearly well within the territory of the state of South Carolina, which was now a member of the CSA, and which the CSA had already offered to reimburse the USA for. They knew that sooner or later The CSA, or at least South Carolina, would take action to evict the US troops and war could then be declared.

So, on April 12, 1861, the Civil War began, when South Carolinian troops, under the command of CSA General P.G.T Beauregard, shelled Fort Sumter..

The citizens of the CSA were immediately labeled as traitors to the USA, even though they were now citizens of the sovereign nation of the CSA. This was necessary in order to justify the Union invasions of a neighboring sovereign nation. And, the war was also touted as being waged to free the slaves. However, the USA NEVER outlawed slavery within the confines of its territory, during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until January 01, 1863; over a year and a half after the start of the war. And, it only affected slavery as practiced within the sovereign nation of the CSA. It did not apply to the US slave holding states of Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware or Missouri nor to the US occupied areas of the Confederacy; Tennessee, he Virginia counties scheduled to become West Virginia and Lower Louisiana, around New Orleans. Slavery would be abolished in Maryland and Kentucky at the end of 1864, by state governmental actions, and in the others by the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 6th of 1865.

Now, primary and secondary schools, and most colleges and universities, have sold the Civil War as a war against an armed rebellion in order to free the slave population of the United States of America. This is largely a false narrative. Most of those who fought for the CSA were not slave holders. And, slavery was not ended in the USA until nearly a year after the surrender at Appomattox. Also, it was clear that the Southern states had every right to secede from the USA and form their own country. And, it was equally clear that the US government flat out refused to remove its troops from territory which was clearly well within the borders of the CSA. So, what were the citizens of the CSA actually fighting for? Partially for their honor. But, mostly they were fighting against an Federal Government which was becoming more and more economically oppressive. The were fighting for their right to dissolve the compact between themselves and the other states within the US, just as their forefathers had back in 1776. These men were always patriots, in their own states. and, back then, the states were supposed to be superior to the federal government.

    gourdhead in reply to Mac45. | August 21, 2017 at 8:51 am

    Outstanding post.

    scaulen in reply to Mac45. | August 21, 2017 at 9:49 am

    Most people over look the fight between federal and states power when it comes to the civil war. All that has been beaten into theses kids heads are slavery. Then they spend 8 years slobbering over one Federal construct and another 8 years resisting one. Fix the Dept of Education and get rid of easy to get Fed grants and loans for college until colleges change their curriculum. Open up more trade/vocational schools like we used to have and stop brainwashing kids that they have to have a college education to get anywhere in the US. The whole push for college education is forcing our kids into liberal meat grinders, the sausages we get out are the ones sickening the country.

      Yacantfoolme in reply to scaulen. | August 21, 2017 at 8:14 pm

      Far too many college and university “professors” indoctrinate students in liberal/progressive ideology rather than present facts that allow them to think and learn. Institutions of tertiary education in America will continue to turn out drones of social anarchism as long as tenure is allowed to protect those who present only the sociopolitical ideology they adhere to.

    Mac45: The Civil War was never really fought to free the slaves.

    While the North initially fought for Union, the South seceded over slavery and white supremacy. Declaration of Causes of Secession:

    Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

    Georgia: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

    Texas: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

      Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | August 21, 2017 at 12:30 pm

      Here is the rest of the paragraph that you failed to quote:

      “The Civil War was never really fought to free the slaves. The ethical issue of how to deal with slavery was part of the reason for the birth of the Confederate States of America, but it was by no means a truly significant reason for the war.”

      Slavery was a major economic issue for the South. Slaves were a direct capital investment and freeing the slave population would have cost the slaveholders all of their current investment in the slaves that they held, but also future capitol which would be paid to the freed slaves in wages. There was also a serious [political component to the issue of freeing the slaves. What happens when you suddenly free a third to a half of your population which is probably going to be hostile?

      The biggest reason why the Southern states seceded was cotton. Cotton, grown almost entirely in the South, was the major export of the young United States. It accounted for almost 95% of the exports from the US, in 1860. So, the South was all for free trade with Europe. The North, dependent upon manufactured goods, most of which could be obtained more cheaply overseas, wanted strong protectionism, in the form of high tariffs. AS soon as the Southern states seceded, the US Congress passed a number of trade protection acts which significantly raised tariffs to protect Northern manufacturers.

      While the issue of slavery resonated as a social issue in the North, it was firmly an economic issue in the South. As noted, most of the whites in the CSA were not slaveholders. Most of these men did not go to war to maintain slavery. They went to war because the new nation that they had just established was attacked and invaded by the USA. Many of the influential leaders of the South had a very significant financial investment in the slaves that worked the plantations, so they had an added incentive to fight. Northerners were sold the war as fighting against rebels [having conveniently forgotten their own heritage of less than a century earlier] and as righting the social wrong of slavery. However, it is always interesting to note that the leadership of the North made no attempt to actually eliminate slavery in the slave holding states within the USA, during the war.

      This war, as with almost every war fought was over economics and territory. And, the USA was the obvious aggressor against a new nation formed by former voluntary members of the US, the CSA.

        Mac45: The ethical issue of how to deal with slavery was part of the reason for the birth of the Confederate States of America, but it was by no means a truly significant reason for the war.

        What part of “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” and “that they {the African race} were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race” do you not understand?

        Perhaps this might help:

        Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. — Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

          david7134 in reply to Zachriel. | August 21, 2017 at 4:24 pm

          Z,
          You realize that the racist statement you are using was also used by Lincoln?.

          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | August 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm

          This attitude was the prevailing attitude among Eurocentric nations, including the American North, Great Britain, Spain, France, etc, at the time. And, it continues today. It was largely due to the disparities between the parent societies involved, with sub-Saharan societies being considered inferior to European societies. Even the white society of the North, including the abolitionists, believed this. In fact, the greatest areas of racial unrest, following the Civil War were the free industrial states. In the 1960s, the largest and most destructive race riots did not occur in the south, but in places like Detroit, LA and NYC.

          Also, you seem to totally ignore the economic investment which the Southern plantation economy had in their slave workforce. Then of course, there was the problem of freeing a captive population, which comprised 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of a given state and granting those people full civil rights.

          But, as I have continually noted, the North made NO attempt to free the slaves within its borders until the very end of the Civil War. And, the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until nearly two years into the war and did not apply to any areas controlled by the Union.

          As long as I am here, a short word on the legality of the US government’s action during the war. This was prosecuted as though it were a war between two countries. The Congress did not declare war against the CSA to maintain the fiction that the member states of the CSA were in armed revolt against the United States. However, the action which most glaringly explodes this fiction was the Emancipation Proclamation. This proclamation only applied to areas which the United States did not control. In essence, it acknowledged that these areas were no longer part of the USA. If they were still part of the US, even though in revolt, depriving the residents of those areas of their property, while allowing residents of other areas to retain theirs would be a violation of the Constitution.

          So, while the continuation of slavery was a part of the reason for the secession of the Southern states, it was NOT the reason why the USA invaded the CSA. The residents of the states comprising the BSA felt, rightly, that they had every right to secede from the USA and set up their own nation and forces of the US invaded the CS, not the other way around.

          david7134: You realize that the racist statement you are using was also used by Lincoln?

          “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

          does not equal

          “Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.”

          Mac45: This attitude was the prevailing attitude among Eurocentric nations

          That doesn’t salvage your claim, which is that slavery was not the motivation for secession.

      david7134 in reply to Zachriel. | August 21, 2017 at 3:18 pm

      Z,
      I see you are jumping from one conservative site to another and are equally ignorant in history as well. Sure, some state legislatures chose to make a statement about slavery, now what is the significance of that? If you look at slavery, there is nothing wrong with it in terms of moral significance and many do not understand this modern revulsion, especially from the faux morals of liberals, who have given us the like of Stallin and Hitler, a socoalist. Slavery is a poor exotic system that will retirement necessity arises. Now, explain why the north, which endorsed slavery was fighting the South to eliminate slavery, no logic. Then secession was legal, so why did Lincoln attack?

        david7134: Sure, some state legislatures chose to make a statement about slavery, now what is the significance of that?

        Um, because when they took the time to declare their reasons for secession, it was slavery and white supremacy that motivated them. When the Vice President of the Confederacy explained the foundation of the Confederacy, he said slavery and white supremacy were the cornerstone.

        david7134: Slavery is a poor exotic system that will retirement necessity arises.

        Have no idea what that means.

          david7134 in reply to Zachriel. | August 21, 2017 at 4:28 pm

          Exotic is supposed to be economic, kindle problem.
          You seem so upset by morals and attitudes of 150 years ago and that they are not the same today. Most of the Northern hero’s held the same views. This is not a good discussion for you as it requires knowledge and logic.

          david7134: Exotic is supposed to be economic, kindle problem.

          Have no idea what that means.

          david7134: Most of the Northern hero’s held the same views.

          So? The claim is that slavery was not the motivating issue for secession. We provided evidence, in their own words, that they did, indeed, considered slavery to be the “cornerstone” of secession.

          david7134: This is not a good discussion … as it requires knowledge and logic.

          Such as your fallacy of diversion. Pointing out that there were racists in the North doesn’t change the fact that the South seceded largely to preserve the institution of slavery.

    david7134 in reply to Mac45. | August 21, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    Mac,
    Allow me to say that that is one of the best comments I have read and an excellent summation of a complicated part of history. I might add that Sumter was precipitated by Lincoln sending 3 fleets to Charleston harbor in a direct effort to elicit the first shot and thus the moral high ground. Lincoln then accumulated a force of 75,000 men to invade Virigina which had not been belligerent in any manner. Lincoln started that war and his stated purpose was to collect the tax. Lincoln was a racist, beyond dought, even for the time. His intended desire for freed slaves was exportation. The hero’s of the CSA should be honored.

Thank you for taking the time to outline the raison d’etre of the War Between the States. So many have so little understanding of the economic rationale of the conflict or the fears of the industrialized north of foreign influence over a significant part of the economy.

“…the City of Chattanooga condemns white supremacy in every way, shape and form,” Berke said in the release.

“Confederates fought against America to preserve slavery. That is the truth, and we should no longer subsidize any myths to the contrary.”

Does this mean the mayor will actively dishonor the Democrat Party as they actively attempted to keep each freed slave as essentially 3/5 of a person? The Democrat Party, through Jim Crow, gun control, voting denials, the KKK, fire hoses, and other means tried to keep blacks as second class citizens long past the existence of the CSA. Will the mayor demonstrate integrity or should I expect duplicity and ignorance?

And people seemed so outraged as the Taliban were blowing up monuments in the Middle East…

Desecration of the dead, its the latest thing. Wonder if they take selfies while doing it? What taboos are left for leftists to shatter? Cannibalism night be next.

    It’s a very short step to desecration and even removal of graves. If that starts happening, things are going to get medieval very quickly. Nothing will p*ss off regular folks like some leftwing idiots or attention-seeking politicians screwing with the graves of their honorable ancestors.

    Bank on it.

I could see the city deciding that maintaining the cemetery was not their responsibility and setting up a non-profit association to accept donations, however, making it political is wrong.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend