The political and cultural left has seized on the fact that U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attended a celebration of America’s 250th anniversary in which a Confederate flag was one of hundreds of historical items on display.
In particular, Sullivan has been criticized for merely standing in the vicinity of the flag as it hung on a balcony along with dozens of other flags from America’s past.
The event, “America Comes Alive,” took place July 4–5 at Mountain City Church in Anchorage. For two days, the church hosted a family-friendly celebration of America, including educational displays encompassing more than 500 historical items spanning 400 years.
In additional to historical flags such as the Gadsden flag flown during the Revolutionary War, the early Betsy Ross flag of the 13 Colonies, the flag of the Grand Union and many others, the event included historical reenactments of the Revolutionary War and Civil War, a presentation by the Alaska Veterans Museum, Civil War stories told by a speaker, readings of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, plus an antique car show.
The Confederate flag and history-altering events of the Civil War were included as part of this wider display of America’s past. The flag was not glorified or celebrated by Sullivan or anyone else.
In fact, all Sullivan did was appear at the event, recite the Declaration of Independence, and offer a few reflections on the principles of all people being created equal and fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He even emphasized the need for Americans to remain steadfast in protecting these rights in the years ahead.
As he spoke, Sullivan stood directly above the U.S. flag. The Confederate flag was off to his left with others.
Nevertheless, this was reason enough for MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) to insinuate that Sullivan somehow approved of the Confederate cause. The article concluded by attempting to suggest that the organizers were bigots by mentioning that the conservative church opposes the LGBTQ political and cultural agenda.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
It didn’t take long for Alaska’s Democrat Party to pounce on the story and try to use it as political ammunition. On July 21, the party published a post on its website, emphasizing that Sullivan stood near the flag in a church that opposes bans on counselors who want to help gender-confused children overcome unwanted same-sex attraction.
Of course, the Alaska Democrats didn’t use those words, but framed Mountain City as a church that has “espoused extreme anti-LGBTQ views, including pushing to overturn a ban on conversion therapy.”
The fact of the matter is that many historical societies, military museums and preservation groups routinely display Confederate flags, along with other historic banners, in an effort to educate the public about America’s past – both the good and the bad. These displays emphasize historical realities and are not intended to project contemporary political beliefs or endorsements.
Prominent museums such as the Gettysburg National Military Park Museum, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History and the American Civil War Museum all include displays of the Confederate flag.
It appears that MS NOW and the Alaska Democratic Party are either advocating the complete whitewashing of the Confederate flag from all historical displays and museums or they are using the fact that Sullivan stood near the flag as an excuse to score political points through veiled insinuations.
What’s clear, however, is that Sullivan never celebrated the Confederate flag, did not even mention it in his talk, and had nothing to do with including the flag in the exhibit.
Sullivan’s campaign told MS NOW that its article was a “dishonest hit piece”. It noted that the senator has “spent his life honoring the men and women who fought and died defending the United States and securing the freedoms all Americans enjoy today, including MS NOW’s freedom to manufacture dishonest hit pieces in an attempt to smear a Marine’s character.”
16 Comments
Kudos to Mountain City Church for sponsoring the event “America Comes Alive” to celebrate America’s #250! . And kudos to Senator Sullivan for refusing to pander to the leftists pathetic attempt to smear him over one of the many flags displayed. The only way to deal with these perpetually offended leftists is to mock them (PMS NOW).
What was different about the Confederate flag from all the other flags on display?
You seem surprised? The left are not rational people.
The left will stoop to anything to lie, cheat and steal
The Proper response ought to have been: “Most southern soldiers of the Confederacy were not fighting for slavery. They were fighting for independence. In 1776, in all 13 colonies, slavery was legal, but those Americans in the War for Independence were not fighting to keep slaves. Southern people have the right to honor their fallen ancestors. Get off their back and GROW UP.”
Yes, the U.S Civil War was about slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, famously declared that the new Confederate government was founded on the “great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery… is his natural and normal condition.”
slavery played a small part in the civil war, But I think the main reason for the civil war was because the southern states
wanted to secede from the union and the North wasn’t having it, they wanted to form their own country and follow Their own rules slavery being part of that, But they also despised the fact that a northerner was elected as president some southern states didn’t even have Abraham Lincoln on the ballot
The Civil War was the second war for independence. It had more to do with the cotton tariffs than slavery. No 1860’s political platform mentioned slavery. Six hundred twenty thousand people in the north or south did not give their lives over slavery. The southerners fought against the invasion of their lands and the northerners fought to save the union. When the states ratified the Constitution, 3 states wrote in their ratification that they could leave the union if they were unhappy with the arrangement. Those states were Rhode Island, New York and Virginia. The flag that upsets the leftist is not even the Confederate flag, it’s the battle flag. Many slave owners freed their slaves upon the deaths. Many blacks fought in the Confederate Army. It’s not a myth as some claim. Most of the southern states created pensions for those black soldiers that served the southern states.
No 1860s political platform mentioned slavery? This is just a straight up lie. Slavery was basically the *only* thing the Mississippi Declaration of Secession mentioned.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
Gary, you are completely wrong and either lying about it or have no idea how to read and express written ideas. EVERY political platform in the 1860’s mentioned slavery. All of them.
Why did they want independence, Bob? What was it they wouldn’t have been able to do in the United States of America if they had remained part of our country?
That flag belongs to Peltola’s party! The Democrats were very focused on skin color back in those days. Funny how that’s still the case!
Paul Hart – I’ll see your VP and raise you three Presidents: Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address said “If I could preserve the Union without freeing a slave, I would do so.” His “Emancipation Proclamation” did not free a slave in the three slave-holding states in the Union. US Grant is said to have remarked after the war: “If it had been a fight to free the slaves, I would have fought for the other side.” Jefferson Davis said the cause of the war was money- the South provided 80% of the federal income before the war by the tariffs, mostly on cotton. The Federal government used that money for “internal improvements”-mostly roads, railroads and canals, almost all in the North. The transcontinental railroad was finished during the war, and not one foot of it ran through a southern state. Robert E Lee freed his slaves in 1862. Grant freed his slaves with the passage of the 13th amendment.
Just lie after lie with you folks. Lincoln did not say that in his first inaugural address, although he did say it–Lincoln’s initial war aim *was* to preserve the Union, but the Union was only imperiled because the South chose to secede. Why did they choose to secede? Slavery, slavery slavery.
Grant may have been *said* to have remarked that, but he didn’t.
Lee did “free” the many (200+) slaves he was managing (not owning) in 1862, a few days before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, because he had repeatedly lost court cases in which he attempted to retain control of them despite their emancipation having been directed in the will and testament of their owner, George Washington Parke Custis. In any event it was a bit of a moot point because the Union Army had controlled Arlington Estate since early in the war and Lee had not lived there since then.
U.S. Grant briefly owned one slave in the late 1850s when he lived in Missouri, probably given to him by his father-in-law. He emancipated (and did not sell, though he was desperately short on money at this time in his life) this man, William Jones, in 1859. He owned no slaves at any point during the Civil War.
Paul Hart, this is a quote from a Confederate member of Congress, when Gen. Lee wanted to enlist slaves into the Southern Army: “If I have to choose between independence and slavery, then slavery has got to go!” If you missed that, it is not your fault, because it has been suppressed. And the North still held slaves: in KY, DEL, MO and MD. That is why Lincoln needed to pass the 13th amendment.
You’re lying again, Bob! To begin with, none of this has been suppressed, all of the information is out there for anyone to read.
For another, your quote is a straight-up fabrication. Prove me wrong, though–name the “Confederate member of Congress” who said it.
The Confederate Congress *did* debate arming slaves–in March, 1865, with Petersburg weeks away from capture and J.E. Johnston’s army days away from defeat in North Carolina. Even at that late date, there was fierce opposition to the move and it was hotly debated. When the measure *did* pass, what it did was to authorize the armament of slaves–slaves who were not even offered freedom as a future reward for their “service” (i.e. their continued slavery).