Caddo Parish Confederate Monument Under Attack

The youthful soldier stands at rest, facing north; his face is "handsome and sensitive, with a slight trace of bewilderment in it."  Perhaps his confusion centers on the conflict swirling around him, on the animosity and anger, or maybe he is attempting to understand how 150-years later, we are still such a divided country.

At issue throughout the South is the manufactured outrage over decades old Confederate monuments.This brouhaha has been roiling New Orleans under the mayoral term of Mitch Landrieu; it has erupted in Memphis,  in Louisville, and let's not even begin the discussion about the battle flag.  Now it has come, once again, to Caddo Parish.

The Confederate monument that stands in front of the north side of the Caddo Parish Courthouse has been challenged  this time by Caddo Commission member Ken Epperson.  The NAACP called for removal of the monument in the past and the issue dissolved into limbo when it was (once again) determined that the 400 square foot parcel of land the monument stands on belongs to the Shreveport Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, given to them for use in perpetuity back in June, 1903. The Caddo Parish Police Jury (the forerunner of the Caddo Commission) donated not only the land but $1,000, or ten percent of the funds needed to pay for the monument, to the UDC.

Portion of 1903 minutes with regard to Confederate monument.

After the end of the Civil War, it fell to the women across the South to bury their fallen sons, brothers, and husbands and to commemorate those who were buried in unmarked graves in places unknown.  Across the South, women banded together in memorial associations, such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy (founded in 1894), for they had a common purpose. By the time our Caddo Parish monument came into consideration in 1903, the second phase of Civil War commemoration was underway and monument building was prevalent.

Despite what the NAACP might tell you, the original intent was not to perpetuate division and celebrate conflict. The primary purpose of these monuments constructed during this second phase (1883-1907) was to not only memorialize the fallen but to educate those in the future who may not have the same "emotional and personal ties" to the war.  The figures on these monuments had no overt political message or content -- something the NAACP and the uneducated liberals might be interested to know.

Because public citizens donated money for the construction of these memorials, it was then believed that these memorials should be a subject of civic pride "to be displayed in conspicuous places" like courthouses, public parks, and cemeteries.  Local historian Eric Brock wrote in the Forum Magazine in 2006:

For many [Confederate soldiers] in unmarked graves around America's battlefields, it is a symbolic tombstone, a sacred place that should forever stand and be respected. Those who forget their history, it has been said, are doomed to repeat it. Worse yet are those who deny history, for they doom civilization itself.

Attempting to erase, or sanitize, or revise, history by dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars to move hundreds of monuments into warehouses or dry museums is cowardice. It is to deny the sacrifices of men who sacrificed and fought for what they believed was their sacred honor -- their homes, families, and their state's rights.  The issues that divided the nation then divide us still only because there are those hate mongers and poverty pushers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who make their living and line their pockets off our being divided.

In July 2015, David French wrote:

Many thousands of the men who risked their lives and spilled blood to defeat the Confederacy would be appalled. Abraham Lincoln would see the malice toward all, the charity toward none. Ulysses S. Grant would be shocked at the notion, for example, that Pickett’s Charge represented “false valor,” and the great warrior-abolitionist, Joshua Chamberlain, would be disgusted at the thought of digging up Confederate bones to make a political statement. But why take any guidance from Union heroes when determining how to remember the past? After all, tweeters and Facebookers know so much more about right and wrong, about justice and injustice. After all, they’ve spilled their own online blood, and they have the hate-tweets to prove it. 

It would take a dim mind indeed to believe that once the Confederate monuments are all gone that our roads will smooth out, the paint will stop peeling off the walls in our crumbling schools, criminals will put down their guns, and drugs will only be used for healing.

Perhaps Ken Epperson and Lloyd Thompson, and their ilk, should take some art history classes, step back and admire the artistic masterpiece that Texas artist Frank Teich created for us.  Not only does

our monument have the young, bewildered soldier, but there are four busts of Confederate generals carved from Texas granite.  And most unusual, and not seen on other Confederate monuments, is the full sized figure of a woman, the Roman goddess of history, Clio, who is writing the names of the Confederate dead in a book of history.  She is lovely.

Our monument is one of the most beautiful Confederate monuments in existence. It was installed in 1906 with thousands of people from Shreveport and Caddo Parish in attendance. It was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2013, the application for which can be found here and from which I have consulted for some of this background.

As it stands now, discussion about the future of the monument has been scheduled for June 9 when it will move before committee chaired by Mario Chavez who said yesterday:

"We have removed it from the agenda tomorrow and it has moved into my long range planning committee. We will have open discussion on June 9th at 1300 in regards to this topic. You better believe I plan on keeping it exactly where it is."

If you feel so inclined, you are welcome to attend the meeting, fill out a speaker card, and have your three minutes to speak before the Commission on the matter.

Local attorney Henry Walker was at the meeting this week and he expressed his concerns that the monument "could possibly affect a trial because of its "implied subject matter."  What would that implication be, Mr. Walker?  What exactly is implied by this monument of Confederate generals, military men of respect and honor, men of value and integrity?  Men of courage.  Men who stood up for their families.  What is implied by a lone woman writing in a book of history?  What is implied by a non-confrontational, bewildered young man?  Mr. Walker told the Commission that the monument is just a bunch of concrete.

That might be the most revealing quote yet.  What exactly is threatening about a bunch of concrete, Mr. Walker?

Just a bunch of concrete?!  Now I'm bewildered.

In past attempts to remove the monument, the NAACP suggested replacing it with a monument for law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty -- even though we have one of those three blocks away. Now the suggestion is that we erect a monument to the USS Golet -- a submarine lost at sea during WWII which was financed with War Bonds, some of which were purchased in Caddo Parish and there was one Caddo resident aboard.

Liberal logic.

Here is the KTBS story of the meeting this week.  Here are the minutes of the Work Session this week.

It seems to me that in the end, preserving our past is the only way to protect our future.  Just as we can't wrap our children in bubble wrap and expect them to negotiate the travails of this world unscathed, we can not sanitize or revise history.  Sometimes that takes resolve and sometimes it is painful, but always it takes courage.  These times of division that we now find ourselves in, more so than ever before, will take courage and all of us pulling together to overcome the closed minded people who want to perpetuate division and discord among us for their own gain.

Hold strong.

Related:
Joseph Welsh Texada's Life Mattered Too

Romney and the NAACP Ad

So, what do you think about this ad?



I'm at cross purposes with it.  We all know the NAACP received Romney for the most part with reservations.  He even got boo'd when he said he'd repeal ObamaCare.  There was the occasional polite applause.

The lefties are upset with this ad because it seems to show the NAACP giving Romney support and applause, a standing ovation, even.  Horrors!  A black person might support a Republican?  OMG!

As far as ads go, I think Romney ought to hire the guy who was doing Rick Perry's ads; while Perry didn't make it, he had some really great ads!

But, having seen Runaway Slave, and having read books by black conservatives like Deneen Borelli, Marvin D. Rogers, Mason Weaver, and Star Parker, I know there is some black support for Romney and I think it's growing.  I don't think Obama will get 95% this time.

What do you think about the ad?  Is it "open and transparent"?  Is it deceptive?  Does it work?

Confederate Monument Continues to Raise Controversy

This monument sits in front of the Caddo Parish courthouse in downtown Shreveport.  The monument has been the center of controversy for more years than I can recall.  It portrays four Confederate generals and the Confederate flag and was placed on land supposedly donated by the Caddo Parish Police Jury to the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1902.  However, according to this report by KTBS, a local news station, the property transfer never actually was recorded in the Clerk's office so the monument is still on public property.

Why is that an issue?

Because the NAACP doesn't like the monument; they don't think it should be on public land, especially in front of the courthouse.  The NAACP marched in protest against the monument in May of this year, just one week before the Louisiana Supreme Court was set to hear the appeal of Felton Dorsey.  The NAACP has filed an amicus brief in support of Dorsey.

Felton Dorsey was convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal murder of retired Fire Captain Joe Prock in 2006.  Prock walked in on a burglary in his mother's home; his mother was bound with her face covered as Dorsey beat her son to death with a pistol.  Dorsey set the house on fire before he left.

Now the twist:  Dorsey has appealed his conviction on numerous grounds, including the fact that the monument prevented him from getting a fair trial:

Mr. Dorsey claims he is innocent and seeks to overturn the conviction on numerous grounds, including that prosecutors used unreliable accomplice testimony. But race is a central part of the appeal. Mr. Dorsey contends that prosecutors improperly removed most of the prospective black jurors from the case, resulting in a jury of 11 whites and one African American.

He claims to have suffered additional discrimination due to the Confederate flag that has flown outside the Caddo Parish courthouse in Shreveport since 1951.

"The quintessential symbol of white supremacy looms over the courthouse," he said in his appellate brief.

One prospective juror was removed from the jury pool after expressing his feelings about the monument:

Carl Staples, a prospective black juror, was struck from the case by prosecutors after complaining about the flag.

The flag "is a symbol of one of the most…heinous crimes ever committed," Mr. Staples said, according to court briefs. "You're here for justice and then again you overlook this great injustice by continuing to fly this flag," he added, calling the flag "salt in the wounds of…people of color."

"When I was screened for the jury, it welled up inside of me and I expressed my feelings," Mr. Staples said in an interview. A part-time radio engineer and announcer in Shreveport, he said, "I don't understand how judges or lawyers allowed that flag to stand."

Does the fact that the monument is on public or private land change anything?  It could, I suppose.  

The comments attached to the KTBS article show that we haven't progressed very far with regard to race relations, and the NAACP seems to continually stir things up.  One commenter asks if the Martin Luther King, Jr. statue will also be removed; it, too, sits on public property. 

This is the description of the flag that flies on the monument which is the third national flag of the Confederacy:

The third national flag was adopted March 4, 1865, just before the fall of the Confederacy. The red vertical stripe was proposed by Major Arthur L. Rogers, who argued that the pure white field of the second national flag could be mistaken as a flag of truce. When hanging limp in no wind, the flag's Southern Cross canton could accidentally stay hidden, so the flag could mistakenly appear all white.

Rogers lobbied successfully to have this alteration introduced in the Confederate Senate. He defended his redesign as having "as little as possible of the Yankee blue", and described it as symbolizing the primary origins of the people of the South, with the cross of Britain and the red bar from the flag of France.

Defenders of the monument (and the flag) say it is history - leave it be.  Opponents say the flag "represents slavery."  

And now the monument could play a part in a death row case.

However you feel about it, the monument and the flag will likely continue to be a point of controversy as it has been for years.

(H/T:  The Dead Pelican)

Shocker: NAACP Condemns Tea Party as Racist

To the surprise of no one, the NAACP is voting on a resolution to declare the Tea Party a racist organization.  Shocker.

Michelle Obama gave the keynote speech to the NAACP convention; she was there to talk about childhood obesity, but members are more interested in digging deeper the racial divide.

Have they issued any kind of a statement against the New Black Panthers?  Because if they did, I missed it.  Did they issue a statement condemning King Samir Shabazz's statements about killing "crackers" and their babies?  Missed that one, too.  Isn't that racist?

For the record, I've been to lots of Tea Party events and haven't seen any racist signs or heard anyone condemn anything except out of control government spending and loss of individual liberties

The Mobile Azalea Trail Maids

The head of the Alabama NAACP, Edward Vaughn, is objecting to the appearance of the Azalea Trail Maids in the inaugural parade. He says the group reminds him of slavery.

Who are the Azalea Trail Maids? They are high school senior girls who go through a rigorous selection process to serve as ambassadors to the city of Mobile. The organization is a long standing Mobile tradition and the Maids have appeared in the Fourth of July Parade in Atlanta, The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, the Rose Bowl Parade, the Easter Parade at Disney World and the George W. Bush Inaugural Parade.

Former Maid, and current advisor, Marcee Hinds has a nice website about the Maids and what they represent.

I don't believe that Edward Vaughn's argument against the Maids will float really, but the audacity of it just knocks me out. Reminds him of slavery? Give me a break. Should we also get rid of large houses with columns across the front, like Tara? Should we quit showing "Gone With the Wind" on television? Where do you draw the line, really? Everyone on the planet can get offended about something, for crying out loud. Where does it stop?

Pinhead.

(Photo: The Mobile Azalea Trail Maids)