The STARS and BARS: A "Civil" Debate
A five-part discussion by Michael Aubrecht and El Veasey

PART 5
M.A. Wow that was a good one El. BUT I fear I did not take as much time as you did to explain some concepts. Perhaps I will try to add a little more as I did not communicate the idea of "God's Will" and "preordainment" well enough. Please let me add to that as we conclude our discussion in hopes that you will understand my belief. I'm sure you will want to present your "closing argument" as well.

E.V. Well Michael, I think this horse has just about breathed its last breath! We could go on commenting and responding 'til the end of time! But all good things "should" come to an end! (Smile). I appreciate your sentiments. I don't expect you to agree with me, as I'm sure you don't expect me to agree with you. But that's Ok! I'm not trying to change your view or how you feel about the Confederate flag or its heroes. I'm just illustrating my view on the subject. I think you may be taking me the wrong way as far as your statements about the "common man" fighting for the Confederacy goes.

E.V. In "Should Americans Honor The Confederate Flag?" I state that they were ostensibly fighting for their state's right to decide what political agenda their state would follow not to support the rich or slave holders. That they were lead by the slave holders to believe they were fighting for their "state's rights" as a cover to get them to risk their lives and unintentionally fight to help maintain their profitable slave business.

E.V. But even if the "common soldier" wasn't fighting to maintain slavery, I believe a lot of them were fighting to maintain white superiority over African-Americans. Of course, as you rightly suggest, all Southerners weren't racists, but the idea of white superiority and the inferiority of African-Americans was widespread and as you've pointed even in the Northern states. But a least the abolitionists and non-slave holding states finally decided to do something about the situation. I think your points about the "common" Confederate soldier and your championing of their participation in the war and their separation from the larger political, socio-economic issues of the war are well taken. Believe it or not, I can totally see this issue from yours and others point of view. But back to the business at hand!

M.A. Yes, I believe in "free will", but if you believe that God is THE almighty and supreme power - that He alone is the Creator and in control of everything - then logically - He knows the future and what choices we will make. I guess I look at it like our life is a series of roads with all of these paths - some are the right choice and some are the wrong choice - we choose (via free will) which path to take - but ultimately God already knows which one we will - then after we take that path - there are a whole new series of paths to ponder. To believe that God is not in "control" of everything - everywhere - at every time - and not able to preordain life is to give us (as man) more credit and power than we deserve. To believe that He did not "allow" BOTH the good things AND the bad things to take place in history - is to diminish His power. Surely He could have struck down the evil in this world (like slavery and Hitler) for the betterment of mankind - but I believe that we had to figure it out instead.

M.A. Does that make better sense? AND I do feel that we are responsible and accountable for our own actions - no doubt about that - BUT I also believe that every thing that happens is for a specific purpose that is preordained. Every birth - and every death - every triumph and every tragedy - serves a higher purpose than we know.

E.V. You say, "Yes I believe in free will, but if you believe that God is an almighty and supreme power - that He alone is the Creator and in control of everything - then logically - He knows the future and what choices we will make." That does follow logically from "your" belief, but it's a belief and therefore may or may not be true. Whether the premises we start our reasoning from are true or false, there's always logical conclusions that lead from those premises, but that doesn't mean they're true, unless the starting premise is true and not a belief!

E.V. You continue, "I guess I look at it like our life is a series of roads with all of these paths - some are the right choice and some are the wrong choice - we choose (via free will) which path to take - but ultimately God already knows which one we will - then after we take that path - there are a whole new series of paths to ponder." That's an interesting way of looking at "our life" but it's a belief and still may or may not be true and "To believe that God is not in control of everything - everywhere - at every time - and not able to preordain life is to give us (as man) more credit and power than we deserve." That's what you "believe", so logically that makes sense to you, but if it's not true... Are you the one who decides how much credit God or man should get?

E.V. You go on, "To believe that He did not "allow" the good things AND the bad things to take place in history - is to diminish His power." Those who "believe" that probably feel as strongly about that as you do about what you believe, But they're both "beliefs" and that's what people usually fight about is their conflicting beliefs, (especially religious or political beliefs) because beliefs are fueled by emotion and emotional reasoning and people get hung up on them, because they're emotionally attached to them, and will fight and die for them as if they are fighting to save their "very" lives, without the least regard for whether what they believe is true or not! and "Surely He could have struck down the evil in this world like slavery and Hitler etc. for the betterment of mankind - but I believe that we had to figure it out instead. Does that make better sense?" That makes perfect sense for the way you "believe", but what if it's not true? If what you "believe" were true it wouldn't be a "belief". We only "believe" something when we're not certain of its "truth". I don't think you can prove that what you "believe" is true, (even to yourself) that's why you only "believe" it's true. One can believe in the truth but the truth is not a "belief". Whew! I almost confused myself on that one! (Smile!)

E.V. I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I'm trying to show you that your beliefs are just that...beliefs...and that others have different beliefs...which doesn't necessarily makes yours or theirs right or wrong...just beliefs! As I've said, most of the fighting and bickering between us as people and a nation, is our hypnotic fixation on our own "beliefs" as true, and our non acceptance and close-minded fixation on others "beliefs" as false, when they're all only "beliefs" taken to be truths! Beliefs are not "truths" but what I'm telling you about "beliefs" is the "truth".

M.A. I also believe that Stonewall was (at heart) a good person - and a sinner not unlike you and me. And I stand by what I said that soldiers have no choice in the matter regardless of the moral principal or not. I never said it was right - just that it was. And that is what makes a military work. War is terrible BUT the goal is to win and you have to control your troops with a heavy hand to do so. It seems we also differ on the concept of duty.

E.V. You say, "I also believe that Stonewall was (at heart) a good person." He probably was. The issue for me is not whether Stonewall was a good person or not and I've never suggested he wasn't. But sometimes being good "at heart" is not enough; being good in behavior is much better in my eyes. There are many otherwise "good at heart" people who make good friends, husbands, wives, neighbors etc., who are vehement racists, bigots or racial monsters when it comes to the issue of race. So just because someone is "good at heart" in some ways, doesn't mean they aren't "bad at heart" in other ways. I can't say if that's the case with "Old Stonewall" because I don't know enough about him, rest his soul.

E.V. And you stated that you stand by your statement that soldiers have no choice in the matter regardless of the moral principal or not. And you can still stand and stand and stand! But no matter where you stand, the fact remains, that one always has a choice. You're just explaining the choices you think people should make according to your strongly held "beliefs", but they don't have to make those choices just because you strongly feel they should. They could choose to do the opposite of what you think they should do and some do, (as much that Idea seems to pain you) but that doesn't necessarily mean their choices are wrong. We can always choose to do or not to do whatever others demand of us and suffer or benefit from the consequences of that choice.

M.A. You stated, "Was it more honorable for soldiers who saw participating in the Vietnam War as immoral but fought anyway, than it was for those who stood by their conviction that it was wrong, refused to go to Vietnam or deserted once they were there in support of that conviction?" I say YES absolutely. My opinion is that if you are a citizen of a country and you enjoy the freedoms, liberties and benefits of that country - then you are obligated (when called upon to defend it) to take up arms and join in the fight. Those that "dodge" the draft or desert their fellow man in the field are ultimately cowards AND traitors who deserve to be held in contempt. I agree with the right to disagree with a war - but that is not an excuse for not fulfilling your obligation in the name of your flag.

E.V. I believe there was a great disagreement at the time about whether or not our troops were fighting for our freedom, the freedom of Vietnam or for other political reasons. As you've said many troops are just fighting because that's what they're told to do or because they want to stay alive, not necessarily because they believe in the policies they were sent to fight for, whether it's for freedom or otherwise.

M.A. One is allowed to protest the war (that is certainly a right), but if that "right" interferes or endangers our troops than it can also be considered a criminal act. I think of the people that you mention (the hippies - the activists - the liberals) that refused to fight in Vietnam and how many of them spit on our troops when they returned and it angers me greatly as those troops (and all before them) fought and died to secure these "protesters" the freedom to openly disagree in the first place.

E.V. The slave holding states didn't fulfill their obligation to their flag. They gave up their citizenship and fought a war against that flag, were they cowards? I think I know your answer to that question. Sometimes one has to "commit" what ones' government deems a "criminal act" to protest or fight what one see as a "greater criminal act" by one's government, as your Confederate heroes believed they were doing, don't you agree?

E.V. The Nazi officers and soldiers during the Nuremberg trials whose defense was " I was only following orders" still received the death penalty or were sent to prison anyway. The point is that your perception that soldiers don't have a choice is just a "belief". The officials who convicted the soldiers at the Nuremberg trials obviously had a different "belief" and put that belief into action!

E.V. Should the slave holding states have taken up the fight to end slavery since they were citizens enjoying the freedoms, liberties and benefits of the country, as that was the growing mood and sentiment of the country? Does it take more courage to go along (sheep like) with what your government and others believe is your duty, when you believe they're wrong or to stand up against your government and others and do what you think is morally right and take the consequences even if it means your death? If someone is ready to face death or public scorn to do what he or she believes is right, how can he or she be considered cowards?

E.V. So soldiers do have a choice. (That's not a belief that's a fact!) Just because their superiors order them to do something, they don't have to do it. May....be.... that's... why.... there... are.... military.... prisons,.... stockades.... and... courts... because... soldiers.... don't... always.... obey.... orders.... or.... abide..... by.... military rules. They choose to follow orders for various reasons, but they could just as well choose not to follow them and deal with the consequences and some do. As the early Christians did when they refused to give their allegiance to Caesar even though they may have enjoyed the benefits and freedoms of Rome.

M.A. You concluded (in regards to Jackson's efforts on behalf of slave children) with "Respectfully, this sounds like more psychological rationalizing to diminish Christian guilt and culpability for a practice that you and Stonewall knew, was horribly in conflict with Christian values and what Jesus taught, making it easier to tolerate what one's knows is wrong without feeling an overwhelming sense of dread or guilt about it." I have to disagree. You have alluded to the Founding Fathers throughout our discussion and their ideas of liberty for all, yet many of these men were slave owners themselves.

E.V. How does that statement logically explain your disagreement about what I said about Jackson in the paragraph quoted above? As I said in a previous response, I'm well aware that the Founding Fathers were slave owners and some of them had conflicts with themselves about it. They weren't perfect. But a least they enshrined the ideals of freedom and liberty for all in the bill of rights to make it possible for others to attain them. No they weren't perfect and there was a discrepancy between their ideals and their practices, but a least they were "ideally" on the right track!

M.A. To judge Jackson (with guilt by association) for fighting "on behalf" of a slave state - one would have to also accuse the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as being both racists and hypocrites. Perhaps they were (in some regards), but once again, I do not believe that all men fully understood how immoral the practice of slavery was as it was a common and accepted practice that had been around since the book of Genesis. I'm not justifying it, but more or less presenting how "the norm" of everyday life in the 17 and 1800's was responsible for what you call the "psychological rationalizing."

E.V. Maybe all men didn't fully understand it but, I think the more educated, more intellectual men like Jackson did. Maybe you're not trying to justify slavery. But you really seem to have a need to diminish any criticism of Jackson and in some vague, nebulous, ambiguous, round about way, cleanse his image of any wrong doing, extol his innocence and spotless virtue, by comparing him to the Founding Fathers, "Northerners" or others who may have shared his views on race. But every individual is to be tried for his or her own participation in a crime, not by what others did during a crime! I believe Jackson and others (and you) had to believe slavery was "ordained" by God because if it wasn't, who would clearly be to blame for it?

E.V. You say you are, "presenting how "the norm" of everyday life in the 17 and 1800's was responsible for what [I] call the "psychological rationalizing." Thank you! But I'm fully aware of the "norm" motivating the "psychological rationalizing" to justify the slave trade, that's why I brought it up! It was all about money, profits and the "God ordained manifest destiny" of those who believed in the superiority of whites and the inferiority of non-whites. One of the most publicly unappreciated rationales used by Southern white intellectuals and politicians to justify participation in the slave trade to themselves and to the common man!

M.A. Certainly it is a blessing that we (for the most part) have moved beyond the times of bondage and human indecency, BUT I fervently maintain it is important to remember that we cannot judge an entire group, by the actions of some - just as one cannot judge a race, or gender, or country by the actions of some. Ultimately we are all sinners and no one is without blame for the ills of mankind. We can only hope to learn from our past mistakes and try not to repeat them. I for one, will continue to honor the memory of those that I feel fought for God and country as well as those who truly believed that Jesus Christ is our Savior and did their part to spread His message.

E.V. You said, "I fervently maintain it is important to remember that we cannot judge an entire group, by the actions of some - just as one cannot judge a race, or gender, or country by the actions of some." I don't believe I've done that, if I have point it out to me. My position throughout this series has been that each individual is responsible for his or her decisions and that, that responsibility can't be transferred to God or anybody else! Or diminished by pointing "the finger' at others who may have made those same or similar decisions. I respect your belief that "Ultimately we are all sinners and no one is without blame for the ills of mankind", but fortunately everyone doesn't believe that including me! Does that mean we can't hold anyone responsible for any specific crimes, abuses or injustices they commit against mankind, because we're "all ultimately without blame for the ills of mankind"?

M.A. In closing, I have truly enjoyed this process El, and I am very glad to have shared my thoughts with another true believer. Peter Akinola, the controversial Anglican archbishop who heads that church in Nigeria, once said, "The Bible says that two cannot walk together unless they are agreed." Taken at face value, this cannot be further from the truth, and I prefer to summarize this entire experience with one of my own favorite passages from scripture: "An honest answer is the sign of true friendship." (Proverbs 24:26)

E.V. I've enjoyed this verbal sparring and bantering match as well! (Smile) Thanks to all the readers who tuned in and took the ride with us. I think the idea of a "Civil" debate was a beautiful 'thang" and hopefully it will inspire many of you, (our readers), to do the same! I'd like to close by saying that this whole series has been about seeing the truth for me rather than about what we or others believe. Because as I've said belief is not truth and we as individuals and a nation, fight and argue more about what we believe is true, than about what we "know" is true! But as Jesus said, " And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32).

E.V. Did he say believing what one thinks is truth "makes you free"? Or "knowing" the truth " shall make you free"? I take that to mean spiritually, psychologically, mentally and emotionally free. Freedom from beliefs and biases that obscure our unbiased perception of the truth about others, ourselves, race, history, God, the Confederate flag, Jesus, or any other subject we're attempting to comprehend. "Knowing the truth" is the image I'd like to leave blazing in yours and our readers' minds. To me, truth represents that " ...True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9).

E.V. May that Light never cease to lighten yours, our families' and our readers minds!

M.A. May God bless you and your family El. This was an experience I will not forget.

THE END

Conclusion: In retrospect, our core statements really were true (on BOTH sides). The Confederate flag IS a symbol of the anti-United States of America, "Confederate States of America," a domestic foreign country - and one CANNOT judge every soldier who fought under the C.S.A. banner as supporting the entire ideology of what that banner stood for (including slavery). It is the "conscience and perspective" from which one looks at these flags today that separates us. You may agree or disagree. You may feel that we had some great points, or that we were "grasping at straws". Either way, our goal was to open some hearts and minds by sharing each other's perspective. I like to think that we accomplished that.

We would like to hear from you. If you have a comment of your own that you would like to add, please feel free to email us: Michael Aubrecht or El Veasey. If we receive enough feedback, we plan to post a new page that will feature your thoughts on our discussion and this issue. Thanks in advance. We look forward to hearing from you!