Ilana Mercer: Yankee Supremacists Trash South’s Heroes

Fox News anchor Sean Hannity promised to provide a much-needed history of the much-maligned Confederate flag. For a moment, it seemed as though he and his guest, Mark Steyn, would deliver on the promise and lift the veil of ignorance. But no: The two showmen conducted a tactical tit-for-tat. They pinned the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia on the Southern Democrats (aka Dixiecrats). “I’m too sexy for my sheet,” sneered Steyn.

It fell to the woman who used to come across as the consummate Yankee supremacist to edify. The new Ann Coulter is indeed lovely.

Also on Fox, Ms. Coulter remarked that she was “appalled by” South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s call “for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the state Capitol.” As “a student of American history,” Coulter offered that “the Confederate flag we’re [fussing] about never flew over an official Confederate building. It was a battle flag. It is to honor Robert E. Lee. And anyone who knows the first thing about military history knows that there is no greater army that ever took to the battle field than the Confederate Army.”

And anyone who knows the first thing about human valor knows that there was no man more valorous and courageous than Robert E. Lee, whose “two uncles signed the Declaration of Independence and [whose] father was a notable cavalry officer in the War for Independence.”

The battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia—known as “Lee’s Army”—is not to be conflated with the “Stars and Bars,” which “became the official national flag of the Confederacy.” According to Sons of the South, the “first official use of the ‘Stars and Bars’ was at the inauguration of Jefferson Davis on March 4, 1861.” But because it resembled the “Stars and Stripes” flown by the Union, the “Stars and Bars” proved a liability during the Battle of Bull Run.

The confusion caused by the similarity in the flags was of great concern to Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard. He suggested that the Confederate national flag be changed to something completely different, to avoid confusion in battle in the future. This idea was rejected by the Confederate government. Beauregard then suggested that there should be two flags. One, the national flag, and the second one a battle flag, with the battle flag being completely different from the United States flag.

Originally, the flag whose history is being trampled today was a red square, not a rectangle. Atop it was the blue Southern Cross. In the cross were—still are—13 stars representing the 13 states in the Confederacy.

Wars are generally a rich man’s affair and a poor man’s fight. Yankees are fond of citing Confederacy officials in support of slavery and a war for slavery. Most Southerners, however, were not slaveholders. All Southerners were sovereigntists, fighting a “War for Southern Independence.” They rejected central coercion. Southerners believed a union that was entered voluntarily could be exited in the same way. As even establishment historian Paul Johnson concedes, “The South was protesting not only against the North’s interference in its ‘peculiar institution’ but against the growth of government generally.”

Lincoln grew government, markedly, in size and in predatory boldness.

“Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil,” wrote the South’s greatest hero, Gen. Lee. He did not go to war for that repugnant institution. To this American hero, local was truly beautiful. “In 1861 he was offered command of all the armies of the United States, the height of a soldier’s ambition,” chronicles Clyde Wilson, distinguished professor emeritus of history at the University of South Carolina. “But the path of honor commanded him to choose to defend his own people from invasion rather than do the bidding of the politicians who controlled the federal machinery in Washington.”

To his sister, Lee wrote: “With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.” Lee, you see, was first and foremost a Virginian, the state that gave America its greatest presidents and the Constitution itself.

Lord Acton, the British historian of liberty, wrote to Lee in praise. The general, surmised Lord Acton, was fighting to preserve “the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will”: states’ rights and secession.

Lee’s inspired reply to Lord Acton:

“… I believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people … are the safeguard to the continuance of a free government … whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Another extraordinary Southerner was James Johnston Pettigrew. He gave his life for Southern independence, not for slavery. Quoting Pettigrew, professor Wilson likens the forbearance of his own Confederate forebears to “the small Greek city-states who stood against the mighty Persian Empire in the 5th century B.C.”

Not quite Leonidas’ 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, but close.

“The U.S. government had quadruple the South’s resources.” Yet “it took 22 million Northerners four years of the bloodiest warfare in American history to conquer five million Southerners,” who “mobilized 90 percent of their men and lost nearly a fourth.”

When they hoist the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, it is these soldiers Southerners honor.

Unable to defeat the South, the U.S. government resorted to terrorism—to an unprecedented war against Southern women and children.

With their battle flag, Southerners commemorate these innocents.

Ilana Mercer: From Purges At National Review To Duggar Pedophilia

Fellow Canadian Kathy Shaidle sends her latest Taki’s Magazine column, “Beta Male Suckiness at National Review.” In it I learn that Kathy’s benevolence approaches the saintly; only recently has she terminated her subscription to National Review (NR). I did so about 15 years ago. The Alberta Report, a Canadian paleoconservative publication with libertarian leanings, soon became the subscription of choice in the home of this budget-conscious, coupon-clipping, immigrant. (Scientific American was another guilty pleasure.)

Why, you ask, would a budding libertarian not patronize Reason Magazine? Well, once one becomes familiar with the libertarianism and writings of the American Old Right—Garet Garrett, Frank Chodorov, Felix Morley, James McClellan, Russell Kirk, Clyde Wilson; as well as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, on and on—Reason rings hollow; its writers ooze a post-graduate cleverness lacking in philosophical depth. Yes (and yawn), we libertarians favor a free market in kidneys and drugs. No, this libertarian has no desire to read desiccated disquisitions on these dry-as-dust topics.

Then there is the delicate matter of my one-off submission to Reason. Here I must pause to apologize to our readers (who’re probably none the wiser) for the frequent use, in this column, of the first person. A difference of opinion exists about this practice, so prevalent nowadays. I (that honestly hurt) consider its overuse a cardinal sin—even by writers who’ve earned the right to use the “Imperial I.” The more frequent the use of “I this; I that” in a column; the crappier the writing. So says I!

With that disclaimer out of the way, I’ll proceed with one of the few chatty columns I’m likely to write.

“How Things Would Work In A Copyright Free Universe” had found favor with the fair-minded, superb editor of Canada’s Financial Post (Larry Solomon). Not so the gatekeeper at Reason! He grumble that my piece fell short of Reason’s standards—so woefully inadequate was my essay; that said editor hastened to use the “inferior” material in his syndicated column that same week. Thus did Reason Magazine become synonymous with pomposity and dishonesty.

Back to Ms. Shaidle from whom I learn that a National Review editor has terminated Mark Steyn’s print-magazine column. I still recall searching frantically for Florence King’s back-page “Misanthrope’s Corner,” which was retired in 2002. That’s how long ago I bid “adios” to NR’s print version (I access Kevin D. Williamson online, as do I appreciate Josh Gelernter’s mention of my work on South Africa).

But why retire the Steyn byline? Steyn is a star. He also supports wars and is extremely talented. To wit, he managed to both defend and diss columnist John Derbyshire, who himself was dismissed from NR (where he freelanced), for writing “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” published, too, at Taki’s.

By the time the “girlie boys” of NR came for Ann Coulter, I was unaware the magazine still appeared in print. Ann’s column was expunged from National Review after 9/11. The reason? Most real people had a 9/11 moment. Miss Coulter’s cri de coeur was particularly memorable. For exhorting, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” she was given the boot. This was a puzzling purge, considering neoconservatives promptly adopted her recommendations, invaded Muslim countries and killed their leaders.

In fact, the neoconservatives at NR supported all Coulter’s recommendations save the peaceful one (Christian conversion). Still do. Clicking through the ENORMOUS icons on the new NR website reveals that Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s evil ideological twin, is touted alongside the Patriot Act, whose “expiration” is mourned. (Fear not, fearless ones, your metadata remains unsafe. The USA Freedom Act, to replace Section 215 of the Patriot Act, is a mere mutation. It privatizes the Patriot Act, by co-opting corporations into the service of the Surveillance State.)

Kathy Shaidle is displeased with NR for different reasons. She floats the possibility that founder William F. Buckley might have, “allegedly,” covered up for “liberal celebrity pedophile” Gore Vidal.

Unlike Buckley, whose prose was impenetrable, Gore Vidal was a brilliant belletrist, who dazzled with his original insights, and was wonderfully unsparing about assorted anal activists and all manner of “vulgar fagism.”

Personally, I’m more inclined to forgive the late Mr. Vidal his “predilections”—”poor choices,” as reality TV’s Duggar dynasty absolves child molestation—than I am to succor the simpering, sanctimonious, fruitfully multiplying Duggars, and their priapic son (Josh), who preyed on his sisters.

As to why talent is vanishing from the TV screens and mastheads of mainstream media (which is what NR is): There’s a reason that everywhere the likes of S. E. Cupp, Kimberly G-string, Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Judy Miller, Kirsten Powers, Leslie Marhsall, Andrea Tantaros, Jedediah Bilious, Margaret Hoover, Dana Perino, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Rich Lowry, Katherine Timpf (OMG!), Hannity’s Tamara Holder (OMG! again) and their editorial enablers are weighing in on weighty matters: However hard they try—the aforementioned cannot outsmart their hosts and higher-ups.

Indeed, mediocrity strives for conformity. Republicans have their own fellatio machine to maintain. For the GOP political establishment, intellectual equilibrium is optimally maintained when the Cupps outnumber the Coulters, the Malkins and the Steyns; a reality that would remain unaltered were James Burnham, Russell Kirk and H. L. Mencken themselves to materialize before our very eyes.

**
Ilana Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer, based in the U.S. She is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Her latest book is “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Her website is www.IlanaMercer.com. Follow her on Twitter. “Friend” her on Facebook.