The Washington Post recently published a story (READ IT HERE) that took place where I live , Randolph County, North Carolina. It features local people but it is actually about President Donald Trump’s support of racism. Similar stories can be found in towns, cities and rural areas
To enter our historic courthouse for a meeting of the County Commissioners, one must walk past an armed Confederate Soldier who fought to preserve slavery. It’s perceived as a racist message by many descendants of slaves.
all across America. For reasons unknown to me, the writer picked the story of the Trogdon family and our community to make her point: overt racist activities are on the rise; and the President of the United States has encouraged it. Continue reading LET’S MAKE RACISM UNACCEPTABLE→
“Lest we forget” – That inscription is carved into the stone foundation upon which a bronze Confederate soldier stands, fully armed, at the entrance to the public building where my County Commissioners meet. A century and a half after the Civil War, it’s time to free this young man, probably a draftee forced to fight for the long defunct Confederate States of America. And it’s time
Confederate Soldier at Randolph County Courthouse
to move ahead in creating the future of the United States of America. “Lest we forget”, the outcome of the Civil war was preservation of the Union, our nation, and it’s flag to which we pledge allegiance. The failed purposes of the Confederacy included breaking that Union – treason.
Some argue that we can’t (or shouldn’t) change history. Certainly they are correct that facts and events of history are what they are. We fought a long and bloody civil war. Its events are well documented. The statue was placed to honor the memory of Randolph County veterans who served the Confederacy. Those are facts of history that we couldn’t change even if we wanted to.
There’s more to our history than a list of events and dates. The war arose from a conflicting sense of right and wrong – values – regarding slavery, economics and national unity. Today our decisions about whom and what our government will officially honor are based on the values of today’s Americans. Change is part of our history, as it is for every nation and civilization.
When Rome became a Christian empire, it replaced the statues of Greco-Roman Gods with statues of saints and old-testament figures. They didn’t change the facts of their history or the mythology of Roman Gods. They did change who was honored in public buildings.
When Germany lost World War II, the Allies took down many Nazi era statues and symbols. The Germans removed the rest from places of honor but they relocated some and re-interpreted their history. German schoolchildren are required to visit museums and learn the horrors of Nazi rule – lest they forget.
The slogan “Lest we forget” comes from a Rudyard Kipling poem about the military conquests of the British Empire. Its original meaning in the poem is similar to the maxim “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” We should keep that meaning in mind today.
Here in North Carolina, the majority of citizens voted against secession. In Randolph County, the reported vote was 2579 against secession and only 45 in favor! They did not want to dissolve the Union or join the Confederacy. But in order to preserve slavery, the basis of their wealth, legislators seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy – overruling the will of voters.
Then the Confederacy created a military draft. North Carolina provided more soldiers than any other Confederate state. North Carolina’s Governor, Zebulon Vance called the conflict “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”. There were so many draft resisters and deserters in Randolph County that the Confederacy imposed martial law. If our statue represents a Randolph County soldier, there’s a good chance that he was a draftee, not a volunteer.
Surely there were many Tarheel soldiers who fought courageously for the Confederacy, as German soldiers did for the Third Reich. Today’s values judge that their sacrifices were on the wrong side of history – in support of slavery and in absolute opposition to the proposition that “…all men are created equal.” Confederate statues and battle flags are part of our history but they don’t belong in places of honor financed and maintained by the governments of free people.
Blood has again been shed over white supremacy, and it should come as no surprise to see Confederate battle flags waved by people shouting Nazi slogans such as “blood and soil”. White supremacy ideology was suppressed but now its advocates parade on our streets carrying clubs reminiscent of the axe handles distributed by racist governor Lester Maddox of Georgia. Our President’s election campaign was eerily similar to George Wallace’s nationalist/racist campaigns in 1964 and 1968. Both railed against polite (politically correct) conversation and both helped unleash pent-up racist rage.
We may never be totally rid of supremacists, but our government should not honor their ideas with statues, license plates and flags. Lest we forget, issuing license plates with Confederate battle flags and honoring Confederate heroes on public property is honoring both white supremacy and treason against the United States.
Before 1954, our pledge of allegiance described America as, “…one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all…” Then Congress added “…under God…” Two years later, they adopted “In God we trust” as our national motto. Now a movement is under way to place that motto on public buildings and patrol cars. Why? And why now?
Congress was clearly motivated by a desire to distinguish us from the officially atheist and communist USSR. Their trust didn’t extend to national defense. They were simultaneously building an arsenal of nuclear weapons to assure that we could destroy the Soviet Union if they attacked us. Although congress didn’t specify which god they trusted, it was a conservative Christian initiative. The reason seemed to be that many Americans took comfort in the idea that God would protect a Christian nation.
Previously, the unofficial motto of the United States was “E pluribus unum” which translates as “One from many”. It referred to one nation emerging from thirteen colonies which had diverse values, religious traditions and laws. It has also been used to describe American national unity among people of various races, cultures, beliefs and religions.
Today’s environment seems similar to that of the 1950s. Fear that Muslim and Latino immigrants will bring terrorism and crime is front and center in our political discussions. A second, and perhaps more powerful concern is that many Americans see the US as a “Christian nation” and they fear that we are becoming something else. The Christian Action League which lobbies to have the motto placed on patrol cars and public buildings obviously thinks the motto refers to the god of evangelical Christians. So do many of the local groups who get financial support from the In God We Trust Action Committee. It has national and state organizations that encourage and pay for the signs and decals.
It seems appropriate to ask, “How is trust in god visible? What does it mean on a public building?” If the nation trusts a god, what is it that we are trusting that deity to do? Regardless of belief (or non-belief) I’d bet that most of us will call for help from a skilled law enforcement officer in a crisis rather than waiting for one deity or another to fix the problem.
I went looking for answers in holy books of the world’s two largest religions. The Christian Bible has a great many admonitions to trust God and live by his rules. Beyond that it is unclear what trust means. The texts that I found are about living life with trust in God – fearlessly. None suggested advertising trust on money, buildings or law enforcement chariots.
In the Quran I found similar messages. Since few Americans are familiar with that book, here are a couple of examples, [3:159-160] “… GOD loves those who trust in Him. If GOD supports you, none can defeat you. And if He abandons you, who else can support you?” “[11:123] To GOD belongs the future of the heavens and the earth, and all matters are controlled by Him. You shall worship Him and trust in Him.” As with the Christian Bible, trust seemed to be about living life with trust in God – fearlessly, not about public displays.
What then, is the motivation for public displays?
Until I hear a more convincing rationale for the signs and decals there are three possibilities that come to mind.
Perhaps proponents hope that signs or decals will convince their God to intervene in the world to protect them.
Perhaps they want to offend non-believers and those who worship a different version of God. Maybe they think they can discourage other beliefs by posting their own on law enforcement vehicles and public buildings. (That kind of thinking is exactly why we have a constitutional amendment prohibiting government preference for any religion.)
Another possibility is that the proponents lack sufficient trust in their own God so they seek validation and support in the form of government-approved signs.
Maybe there are other reasons that are best stated by those who have made decisions to put the motto on display. I prefer “E pluribus unum”. It describes the confidence of a nation that will be great in the future as it has been in the past rather than the fears of a nation whose faith is weak.
In my last column I asked readers what they want from American gun laws. This column reports back what they said. It isn’t a statistically reliable survey with a controlled sample but 90 readers responded and there is enough self-reported diversity among them to serve as a basis for more conversation on the subject. For detailed responses including all of the reader comments CLICK HERE.
I asked readers to classify themselves into one of five groups:
Very Conservative = leaning toward tea party or conservative evangelical viewpoints.
Conservative = social conservative and generally Republican.
Unaffiliated = not conservative or liberal or partisan.
Liberal = social liberal and generally Democratic.
Very Liberal = social liberal leaning toward European Socialist viewpoint.
Those are the categories that you will see in charts below. Green numbers indicate areas of agreement. Orange indicates disagreement with the other groups. It should be noted that the low response rate in the “very conservative” group means that their data are the least reliable.
Table 1 shows high levels of agreement among the groups about who should NOT have guns.
What criteria should a person meet before they are allowed to purchase a gun? Check all that apply.
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
No criteria. It should be legal for anyone to purchase a gun.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Only adults age 18 or older should be allowed to purchase guns.
83
75
83
79
95
93
People with felony criminal records should not be allowed to purchase or own guns.
87
100
92
90
91
93
People who have been involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment should not be allowed to purchase or own guns.
89
100
83
90
91
93
Only People who have completed safety training should be allowed to purchase and own guns.
69
25
58
62
86
93
Table 2 shows strong support for background checks before purchases in the form of either universal checks or renewable licenses.
How should gun purchasers demonstrate compliance with your criteria? Choose one best answer.
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
Just sign a form. We’ll take your word for it.
1
0
8
0
0
0
Background checks should be done for purchases from licensed dealers but sales at gun shows should be exempt (current system)
11
50
17
11
0
0
Purchasers must submit a valid ID and there must be an instant background check conducted for every gun purchase.
67
50
58
59
91
77
Gun owners should have one background check then receive a multi-year renewable license so they don’t need a new background check for every purchase.
21
0
17
30
9
23
Table 3 shows a substantial amount of agreement on banning certain types of guns and ammunition but that does not include hand guns with large magazines. Many unaffiliated respondents agree with liberals about banning rifles with large magazines.
Are there any kinds of guns or ammunition that individuals should not be allowed to possess? Check all that apply.
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
Machine Guns
92
50
83
92
95
100
Rapid fire rifles (like assault rifles) capable of large numbers of shots before reloading
77
50
33
64
100
100
Rapid fire hand guns capable of large numbers of shots before reloading
63
0
33
40
95
86
Guns disguised to look like something else such as a cane or umbrella.
85
50
75
76
95
93
Guns designed to be invisible to metal detectors and other security systems (such as plastic guns)
94
100
92
84
100
100
Ammunition designed to pierce body armor (cop killer bullets)
86
50
83
80
95
93
Table 4 shows strong agreement to ban guns from commercial flights. Unaffiliated and Liberals would also ban them at schools and airports but conservatives are divided about that.
Are there places where civilians should not be allowed to carry guns? Check all that apply
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
Airports
77
50
55
76
90
92
Commercial airline flights
96
100
91
95
100
100
Public Schools and their extracurricular events
82
50
55
76
95
100
Bars
76
100
55
67
86
92
Public College Campuses
68
0
27
57
86
92
Table 5 shows strong agreement to ban shooting near schools and where bullets cross the property of owners who have not given permission. Unaffiliateds and liberals tend to oppose shooting near homes, public buildings and businesses of people who have not given permission. Conservatives said it should be permitted near homes.
What restrictions should there be on where people can shoot guns? Check all that apply.
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
Not within a specified distance from a school
95
100
92
93
100
93
Not allowed if bullets cross property where shooter does not have the owner’s permission.
87
0
67
89
100
100
Not allowed within a specified distance from any residence where the owner has not given permission
73
0
28
63
91
100
Not allowed within a specified distance from public buildings, parks or businesses
80
50
67
67
100
100
Limited to designated areas of national and state forests.
51
0
17
48
73
71
Not allowed within a specified distance from highways.
65
25
25
52
95
86
There are many areas of agreement across the political spectrum about the content of gun laws but no apparent agreement about which legislative body should make the laws.
Who should make the laws that govern guns and gun ownership?
TOTAL
PERCENT
Very Conservative percent
Conservative percent
Unaffiliated percent
Liberal percent
Very Liberal percent
Congress should make national laws and states can add to them.
66
50
9
59
86
100
There should be no national laws. States should do this.
26
25
64
37
9
0
There should not be any laws limiting gun ownership in any way.
5
25
18
4
0
0
Cities and counties should be permitted to create additional restrictions as needed.
59
0
45
44
77
85
Those who believe cable news channels won’t hear it reported, but this survey demonstrates many areas of agreement on actions that might reduce gun deaths. If we listen and respect each other’s opinions, we might be able to move forward with ideas that have broad support rather than allowing areas of disagreement to paralyze us. Perhaps the most disturbing disagreement is not about what our laws should be; instead it is about which legislative body should make the laws.
My hope is that this column will encourage conversations among friends and families about gun laws; and that those conversations will lead to mutual understanding. My belief is that most of our legislators do not want to lead on this subject. They are waiting for us voters to make up our minds. The survey says that we have already done that on some subjects. If that is true, we should let lawmakers in on the secret.
When the Randolph County Commissioners decided to develop an industrial megasite, I was cautiously optimistic because they are attempting to create much-needed economic and job growth. Today it is alarming that our usually fiscally conservative Commissioners have committed $10 million – essentially all of the money available for economic development projects – without adequate planning. Continue reading ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INDUSTRIAL MEGASITE→
