Customer Reviews

Embattled Banner: A Reasonable Defense of the Confederate Battle Flag

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Don Hinkle's book, "Embattled Banner: A Reasonable Defense of the Confederate Battle Flag", is a book that I simply could not put down. My great-grandfather fought under that flag, yet he never owned a slave in his life. Our friends in the North often paint a picture that is quite different from the truth, about why the War Between the States was fought. This book was very refreshing. With all the negatives in the news today, I wanted the REAL truth, and this book provided it to me. Mr. Hinkle makes it clear that opponents of the Confederate battle flag are simply ignorant of the truth, and probably make these statements without knowing anything about the flag other than what left-wing opponents of the flag tell them in speeches. Hinkle obviously did quite a bit of research on this book, supporting his arguments with facts, and not distortions. After having read it, I am much more in favor of keeping the flag flying in South Carolina, Gerogia, and Mississippi. It's part of our history, and anyone that doesn't like it can always move to another state.

As a Southerner I was naturally attracted to this book, which makes a real effort to explain the positive connotations of the Confederate Battle Flag. The question the author does not address sufficiently is why such a defense is necessary at all. After all no one criticizes the American flag because it was the symbol of a slave republic for ninety years and also the symbol of the cultural genocide of Native Americans for longer than that, or the British flag because it was a symbol of the slave trade for over one hundred and on and on. That any public symbol of any group of people can be interpreted negatively is self-evident, but rather than exploring this point Don Hinkle limits himself to making clear (and successfully so) that Southerners (like everyone else) have a right to be proud of their heritage and their emblems, and that Confederate symbols are as much an honored part of American history as the Star Spangled Banner or the Martin Luther King memorial. After all, he contends, Southerners are Americans too, who made and continue to make a sizable contribution to this country. And no, the Confederacy was not about perpetuating slavery, every hear of the Corwin Amendment, or Lincoln's myriad statements that the war was about "preserving the Union" with or without slavery folks? It was instead, as Hinkle implies but should explicate more clearly, more about trying to keep the South from becoming the political, social, and economic colony of the North (and West), which is just what happened after 1865. Despite these limitations, this book is a good start towards an objective understanding of an issue that has been unreasonably clouded by misplaced and self-serving emotions.

I am a Son of a Confederate Veteran. This book puts many of the facts about the South and the need for all Southernors to stand for the banner out there for everyone. The Battle Flag belongs to everyone, both Black and White, who believes in truth, honesty, and the America we should all strive to believe in. Every man, woman and child should read this book. It covers some unpopular ideas that fly in face of the politically correct. I would say "Forward the Flag", may it fly everywhere, as a reminder of the costitution. A must read for all students of history!

This is a great book on a subject that is often misunderstood. This book explains why the battle flag is a symbol of Southern heritage and pride and DOES NOT represent racism and hatred to the vast majority of people-North and South-who honor it. Most people in this country have never been taught the true history of the war--it's not in our schoolbooks. Remember, conquerors always write history as they want it to appear. It's taken over 100 years for the South to recover economically from the war. It will probably be another 100 years before the events leading to the war, the war itself, and the aftermath can be fairly evaluated without the taint of Northern bias. The events of history speak for themselves when fairly and accurately reported.

So said the late and great Ronnie Van Zant in the intro to Sweet Home Alabama, and he was right.

It is obscene and a total distortion of reality to describe the Confederate Flag as a "racist symbol". Don Hinkle has certainly done us proud with this much-needed boost for the good people of The South.

The supreme irony is that by attempting to ban the Confederate Flag (anti-Flag pedants please note, my capitalization is deliberate) they will turn it into a rallying symbol for every WASP who has had enough of being blamed for all of the evils of the world.

Proportionally speaking, very few whites have openly supported the KKK and other Right Wing groups. Yet with a Communist-inspired "Liberal" onslaught on the Confederate Flag, lines are bound to become blurry.

Yes, slavery was wrong, we've all figured that out, and if we hadn't been deliberately undermined by reckless and subversive immigration policies, black and white integration would have taken place much more rapidly.

The number of lies about The Racist South are equalled only by the pitiful attempts to deify thugs such as Lincoln, whose War Of Northern Aggression only belatedly and incidentally embraced the slavery issue. As another reviewer correctly observed, it was about taxation and the suppression of The South.

Good job, Don. It ain't Tolstoy, but it's written from the heart, and The Truth will always get through. Time to give up the Confederate Flag? No, it's time to draw a line in the sand.

Dear Readers,

I write this review in order to try to set the record straight. This book is quite well done. It points out several interesting facts. But you can read those for yourself. It is well worth reading. My review is more in response to the ignorance shown by a couple of the other reviewers. Although I cannot blame them. They were given a public school education, which is fraught with lies and political correctness. I will attempt to make several points. 1) The African slave trade was much older than the United States. That same trade still exist today in Africa. I find it amusing that with all of this trade alive and well that no one is screaming about it. I guess it is because it is black people enslaving black people. To admit this is happening might lose people some of their freebies. 2) Only about 14% of the citizens of the Confederacy were slaveholders; not 80-90% which the schoolbooks would have you believe. 3) Of those people holding slaves, there existed free blacks who held slaves. The census records show over 2,000 slaves were held by those of African descent. 4) If it was a war to end slavery, then why did the "Emancipation Proclamation" not occur until far into the war. 5) That great "abolitionist" Abraham Lincoln once stated, " If I could keep this Union together without freeing one slave, I would do it." 6) The fact is the war was about states rights. The north was taxing the South so highly in order to keep the South from selling their raw goods to France and England, that the South was going broke! 7) Oh, and by the way, there were FREE blacks as well as slaves that formed Confederate troops towards the end of the war. They fought with valour just as the whites did! Just as a sideline. I moved to Oregon a few years ago. When I began meeting my workmates. They noticed that I had a Southern accent. The first things out of thier ignorant mouths was "how many sheets do I have hanging in my closet?" Then they began telling about the South. When I asked them what part they had visited, thier response was " oh, I've never actually been."

God Save The South!

If you're a politically correct liberal who can't stand anyone else having their own opinions, you'll quickly suffer a "Maalox Moment" after reading this book.

But, if you're in the vast "silent majority" and you wonder what the hell all the hoopla is regarding the confederate battle flag and other symbols that have been around for well over a hundred years, then this is the book for you.

The author gives a readable, yet comprehensive account of what that flag meant to the folks who fought for it, and where today's politically correct circus got started.

And when you're through, you may just feel like singing "Dixie" again!!

Every once in a while the controversy of abolishing the Battle Flag of the Confederacy pops up. To strip a nation of its heritage and the symbols they represent is wrong. Don Hinkle does an outstanding job defending the Flag with a great deal of research and facts.
I thought as an American that you had the right to express yourself as stated in the Constituton. However, it appears that a select group of individuals and organizations wants to strip that right from individuals who have a deep tie with the fallen men of the south.
There are people out there that feel the flag is a symbol of racism and slavery. Hinkle shows that that is far from the truth.
Many states and school districts ban students from wearing or displaying the battle flag while in school or attending school sponsored events. Yet a student can wear the flag of Great Britain a country we fought for our freedom some 200 years ago. So why ban the Battle Flag?
Groups trying to abolish the flag use hate groups like the KKK and others in their effort to ban the displaying of the flag. They state that these groups fly these flags on their marches and demonstrations. Do these groups in favor of ridding the Battle Flag watch current events. I think not for if they did they would see these groups also fly the American Stars and Stripes. So, should we abolish the American Flag. It would seem to make sense to me if they want to continue to use this as their argument.
Don Hinkle has done an excellent job at defending the cause of the Confederate Battle Flag. He provides countless reasons for keeping it and none for abolishing it.
The American People need to read this book and follow it up with others like it. After all we should be looking for the truth and not what others want us to believe.
In sum, Hinkle provides a strong argument for defending the Battle Flag. He changed my view on the flag. I too thought it as a symbol of slavey and racism. I thank Don Hinkle for allowing me to set my own values and not be persuaded by the media and others.

Mr. Hinkle has done an excellent job of mounting a defense of the Confederate battle flag and knocking down the misinformed attacks made against it. A must read for any historian or anyone who cares about fact concerning the symbols of the Confederacy.

My assessment of "Embattled Banner" is that Mr. Hinkle has done a very credible job, indeed. He has taken on a subject that is very sensitive in today's politically correct world. He has gone down a path that many less stout of heart would be loath to embark on. As some reviewers have pointed out he has made statements that could be considered inflammatory, but only to those whose minds are closed to ideas other their own. Overall I believe, he done an excellent job of informing and explaining and for that reason alone the book is very worthwhile reading. Mr. Hinkle is biased. Of that there can be no doubt and I am quite sure he would readily own up to his biases. He is a Tennessean. A pro-Southern bias is to be expected. For the record, I am biased, too. I am descended from two of the signers of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. I strongly suspect that this "accident of history" has influenced my enjoyment of the book in a positive manner. Accidents notwithstanding, it seems to me that Mr. Hinkle has done what he set out to do, i.e., make a reasonable [and reasoned] defense of the Confederate battle flag.

After reading the reviews for "Embattled Banner: A Reasonable Defense of the Confederate Battle Flag," however, I find that not all reviewers agree with my assessment. For example, one reviewer states "The first state to succeed [sic] from the Union was South Carolina on December 24, 1860 and the legislation of succession [sic] sighted [sic] slavery and only slavery as the root of the dispute." Either the reviewer never read the Ordinance of Secession or, if he did read it, it was through the uncritical prism of an Anti-Confederate bias. Otherwise, I do not think he would make such an obviously wrongheaded statement.

I think we all know that legal documents seeking to redress grievances customarily state those grievances in the order of their importance to the grievers. In the first paragraph of the Ordinance the South Carolina Legislature starts justifying its reasons for secession by stating, "The people of the State of South Carolina, ...declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States,...," etc. This refers to "states rights," not slavery, as the primary reason for wanting to secede from the Union. In fact, of the 20 "justification" paragraphs in the document, slavery is not specifically addressed until paragraph 14. Historians, I think, agree that states rights was the most important reason for secession. The freedom to keep slaves was a part of the greater states rights issue, not the other way around.

Reviewers need to be wary of making blanket statements, particularly inadequately researched ones. Ideas tend to be repeated, even wrong ideas. That is the crux of the whole problem some people have with the Confederate battle flag, not to mention the raison d'etre for the book.

Another reviewer states, "The immediate problem with Hinkle's book is that poor rhetorical and stylistic decisions appear persistently. The prose fails to flow smoothly due to poor transitions, inappropriate diction, and even some errors in grammar and punctuation." The reviewer chooses to remain anonymous so we have no way of assessing his bona fides for making such a statement. However, in my estimation, the real problem his statement is the implicit idea that poor grammar is indicative of uncritical thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. May I point out to the reviewer that many of our founding documents contain grammatical and spelling errors. Does that make them somehow less valid?

May I also point out that Don Hinkle is a well-respected journalist (both print and media) of long standing. He has the bona fides. Because Mr. Hinkle's stylistic decisions do not agree with the reviewers does not make them any less valid or effective. By the way, what is a "rhetorical" decision? To paraphrase to Mr. Webster is it "one made merely for effect with no [decision] expected?"

Yet a third reviewer said, "It [the book] is rooted in bias, and has obviously not had the benefit research based on reason, or the weighing of evidence." The reviewer strings together two statements that do not correlate. May I point out that all books are biased in one way or another. Because a book is biased it does not follow that its research has not been based on reason and evidence. Further, neither reason nor evidence is absolute. Each is open to interpretation. If I were a cynical person, I could easily say that the reviewer's review "...is rooted in bias, and has obviously not had the benefit research based on reason, or the weighing of evidence."