“This Flag Never Goes Down”: Amazon Reportedly Takes Down Historical Book On Confederate Flag Due To Confederate Flag On Cover

3178086_480The extensive move to remove the Confederate Flag from public and some commercial settings has raised serious concerns over both free speech and academic freedom. While the flag has been used as a racist symbol, it is also a historical symbol. According to one author, that distinction appears to have been lost by Amazon, which reportedly took done the book by Michael Dreese, a civil war author with six books on the conflict. Two of those books concern both the Union and Confederate battle flags and their roles in the Civil War. However, “This Flag Never Goes Down” (a book on the Confederate flag) was taken down by Amazon from its listed works.

The move by Amazon is reminiscent of the move by Apple to remove games, including Civil War games, featuring the flag. Apple later back pedaled on the historical products.

Dreese says that he received an email from Amazon asking him to take down the listing. He says that the book is nonfiction and does not advocate for the flag. It is a historical work.

Amazon.com-Logo.svgI did find the book on the UK Amazon this morning. It is not clear if Amazon reversed the actions cited by Dreese or has not carried through on the delisting. The controversy is the subject of chatrooms on Amazon.

If the story is true (and I have no reason to doubt this author), it is a bizarre move by Amazon and captures the concern of free speech advocates and academics over the wholesale effort to remove every image of the confederacy from statue to mosaics to flags. There needs to be some recognition and tolerance for historical images and particularly academic work.

What do you think?

110 thoughts on ““This Flag Never Goes Down”: Amazon Reportedly Takes Down Historical Book On Confederate Flag Due To Confederate Flag On Cover”

  1. Betty,

    If you read that document a little further, you will see that “Indentured of Servitude” was hereby banned. The only indentured servants in essence allowed was an apprenticeship of the day. You would work for No Pay or nominal pay with room and board, while learning a craft or trade.

  2. Samuel, I was just acknowledging my error and thank you for the correction. So much better than our going to war over a fact when I am clearly incorrect.

  3. The 1787 Constitutional Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion tot he relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. A compromise which was finally agreed upon – of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers- reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

    The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Unites States Constitution which reads:

    Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxes, three fifths of all other Persons.
    ———————–
    So it looks like the 3/5 apportionment also applied to indentured servants.

  4. Betty,

    I have no issues when someone is incorrect. They either find the error of the way or don’t. Life is full of choices and lots of good information if they so choose to learn.

  5. Samuel, I stand corrected on the percentage that slaves were counted. The “correction” was an increase from zero for the purpose of giving southerners additional seats in Congress.

  6. Ari,

    They may have been spreading the seed so to say, and it was a very accurate custom to determine the fate of a child based on the status of the mother. We have a very common saying that goes like this “it’s a very wise child who knows his father.

    To your statement and elaborating on, the slaves only counted as 3/5th of a vote. I presume this was a voting rights correction amendment from the very “git go” of the state of America at the time.

  7. Also noteworthy was the laws passed in Virginia circa 1750 where the status of a newborn was determimed by the status of the mother, and if a slave, so was the off spring. Seems the planters there had populated the state at the time with more blacks than whites.

  8. DBQ, You’re right about the Confederacy wanting to ban the importation of additional slaves but I think you missed the point. Breeding slaves for sale was the objective for their evolving economy and they didn’t want the competition. VA, in particular, was moving in that direction.

    Slavery was the primary reason for the secession, they believed that Lincoln intended to abolish slavery. The economic issues were related to slavery. Remove slavery and the southern states would be badly hurt economically. The state’s rights issue was about the many northern states that were exercising state’s rights by passing laws contrary to the federal law which required that runaway slaves be treated as property and returned to their owners.

    I don’t understand the lack of representation claimed by the southerners. The designation of slaves counting as 4/5 of a person was for the purpose of increasing the representation of southerners in Congress. Maybe they felt underrepresented because they wanted their slaves counted as full persons, even though they couldn’t vote. This method of counting slaves in determining population actually have southerners a greater representation than the northerners.

    And don’t forget that the first violence of the war was the firing on Fort Sumter, a federal fort.

  9. This Flag Never Goes Down!: 40 Stories of Confederate Battle Flags and Color Bearers at the Battle of Gettysburg
    Mar 2004
    by Michael Dreese
    Paperback
    $12.30$12.95
    Usually ships in 1 to 4 weeks
    More Buying Choices
    $12.30used & new(4 offers)

  10. Ha ha! Edward, the article has been rewritten since it was posted yesterday morning. Scroll over the title in the bar above; you can see “reportedly” has been added. The speculation about delisting and relisting is all new.

    And real reporters, like with journalistic ethics and stuff, fact check. They don’t spread rumors. Mr. Turley would never have had to say “reportedly” in the first (or actually second) place if he’d just gone over to Amazon and searched for it.

    Aren’t there enough real things in the world to be outraged about without fake censorship stories?

  11. Google Translation

    German English

    mein Kampf mit der Flagge my struggle with the flag

    ACH DU LIEBER!!

  12. I just check Amazon and entered: Confederate Flag. There were a lot of books on the first page and I did not go further. Much Ado About Nothing.

  13. It is my understanding that people have to lodge a complain in order for Amazon to take something down. I recall that happened in the Swastika scandal. Is that an Indian symbol all over that white spring dress, or is that an Aryan Nation outfit?

  14. DBQ:

    “The people in Jefferson State areas do not have the representation of their legislators in California or Oregon. Our interests are not being served. In fact we are being exploited for our resources, repressed and prevented from utilizing our own assets.”

    Ah, yes, the water wars. By definition, the high population density areas like cities vote for policies, but the low density rural areas in water-resource-rich areas have no self determinative say about policies that affect them.

    That’s why cities vote for vacation trains to be built right through rural towns. It doesn’t affect them, so they vote for it in other people’s back yards. The cities vote for policies that don’t work well in rural, farming, or logging areas, but there’s nothing they can do. They cap farmer’s wells but do not combat the illegal immigration burgeoning our population well past sustainable levels in our water-strapped state. They waste taxpayer money via our broken procurement system in which we over pay and they under deliver.

    I do believe that not only has CA grown too large, some of its counties are absurdly huge, too. Los Angeles county has millions of people in it, and contains such a diverse makeup that one counties rules don’t fit everywhere. Same with San Berdu and Orange and several of the other mega-counties.

    I think the counties need to be broken up along lines that make more sense. I also think this enormous state would be happier split up into two or more smaller states, again drawn with boundaries that actually make sense. But I do not see the latter ever happening. CA will never let go of the resources in the north, even though they refuse to respect the region’s wishes on policy.

  15. Does anyone have an explanation for all the numerous other books that have a confederate flag on the cover over at Amazon? Even if this particular book were to have been pulled and then resisted, there were numerous others that were not.

Comments are closed.