Judge agrees to sale of confederate heritage tag

Everyone has a heritage; and like any other “family”, none are exempt from a few “bad apples”, or a “crazy Aunt Marion” or some other “skeleton” tucked neatly away in their closet.

One such organization is the Sons of the Confederacy; a living history group formed in defense of the Confederate soldier’s good name and the guardianship of his history.

Its ranks include members who are happy today when it was reported that a judge ruled the display of the confederate flag on a license plate is a “First Amendment protected right”.

There are already 120 specialty license plates available when you purchase a new tag. So many, that various groups have complained about the cost of producing so many different variations. For that reason, restrictions are now imposed on the causes and groups who want to show affiliation and financial support for one organization or another.

The Sons of the Confederacy have met those restrictions; they have paid the $60,000 application fee required by the state, put together a marketing strategy and collected a list of at least 30,000 potential buyers in support of a proposed tag that will feature the image of the “stars and bars”.

The interesting point is that groups who have protested and passed resolutions condemning confederacy symbols, like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, at least locally, are not complaining.

In a televised interview with Anthony Rodgers, Second Vice President of the Jacksonville chapter of the NAACP, he said, “If one chooses to purchase a tag that has any emblem on it, that’s his right to purchase it.”

Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman David Westberry was quoted to say that his department isn’t protesting the new, proposed tag and that the Sons of the Confederacy have done due diligence in the application; which, when issued, will earn money for the organization for each tag sold.

“There doesn’t appear to be any impact on the department in respect to a specific directive to move forward and take any type of action,” Westberry said. “Nor, does it compromise any of the department’s current license plates.”

Sons of the Confederacy say that they have been misunderstood in the past. According to an announcement, their group is not racist — nor does it encourage racism among members.

“Our charge,” the announcement says, “is the emulation of the confederate soldier’s virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved, and those ideals which made him glorious.”

Some historians have said that the “Civil War” was inappropriately named — it was, they say, the “Second American Revolution”.

The court appears to agree, at this point — at least on the group’s right to display the confederate symbol on their automobiles.

Detractors have called the Civil War “an illegal uprising” as a basis for protesting approval of confederate symbols. In 2000, the State of South Carolina relocated the confederate flag after protests arose from the display of the flag on the Statehouse at Columbia.

A deal was brokered, in that state, to move the flag from the Statehouse dome to a location beside a monument to confederate soldiers.

As to the legality of the Civil War, one constitutional scholar said,

“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848.