In Louisiana, a black man who was convicted for murder is seeking to overturn his conviction on several grounds, the most interesting of which is this: he contends that the fact that the Confederate flag flies in front of the courthouse where he was convicted is evidence of discrimination.
And not just in an abstract sense; the lawyers for Felton Dorsey, convicted in 2009 of murdering a white firefighter, point out that a prospective black juror was struck from the case after he expressed outrage at the flag's presence. The jury that convicted Dorsey ended up having 11 whites and only one black person.
Of course, the WSJ's recap of the case today includes the obligatory defense by a Louisianan that "the flag is simply a neutral memorial to soldiers." But we found an even better defense from one J.F. Quayhagen, in a letter to the editor of the newspaper in Shreveport, where this controversy has been raging. Mr. Quayhagen objects to the fact that Harvard professor Charles Ogletree has "waded into" this case:
Now I can surmise that Mr. Ogletree has nothing better to do at Harvard. Perhaps he is in charge of the Revisionist History Department. If so, he would want to completely change the history of the Civil War and wipe out 1860-64 completely.
I would suppose that everyone knows what "revisionist history" means. No? Well, a person who is not satisfied with the way history played out wants to change it to suit himself. This is what is happening with the Confederate flag. Mr. Ogletree wants to remove this flag from history. I sincerely hope he does not get his way.
Haha, the revisionists are the people who think the Confederate flag is a racist symbol of an ancient racist cause; not the people still clinging to the Confederacy. Got it? Got it. We must always celebrate fighting for slavery, if we are to have a fair justice system down in Louisiana.