Atlanta Students Bring Mars to Earth

by Mark A. Sequeira


As part of a group called Aspiration Creation, students from the Dunwoody/Sandy Springs area participated in a project with the European Space Agency (European equivalent to NASA) to take real live images of Mars.  Students were required to submit a proposal to the ESA, identifying the feature they wished to image, as well as detailing how they planned to use the images.  Proposals were accepted from Europe, The United States, Argentina, and Australia.  Theirs was among 25 proposals selected internationally.  Their work culminated in a PowerPoint presentation which was published on the European Space Agency’s website under the subheading “Aspiration Creation”.  Click on the “Project PPT in Website” link under the subheading to view the entire presentation.



Students created this gif by viewing several images sequentially


So how did all of this come about? The European Space Agency has a satellite called Mars Express in orbit around the red planet. The satellite is equipped with a bevy of scientific instruments used to study the Martian surface and atmosphere. Among these instruments is a camera called the Visual Monitoring Camera (VMC). In May the European Space Agency announced that Mars Express would be entering solar conjunction, a period where Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun. This phenomenon makes it impossible for Mars Express to communicate with Earth, so engineers typically preprogram maintenance and diagnostic routines for the satellite to execute until communication can be reestablished. Additionally, ESA announced that they wanted to utilize this time to make the VMC available for educational purposes. So, they released a Request For Proposals. Groups whose proposals were selected would be allowed to point the satellite at the Martian feature of their choice and image it. In their proposals, students had to identify the feature they wanted to image, support their reasoning, and state how they would use the images for educational purposes. The trick was that there was only a 3 day window for the satellite to take images, so not all features would be visible to the satellite or adequately illuminated by the Sun. To address this issue, the students had to download, learn, and use a solar system simulation software (Celestia) to figure out which features would be good candidates for imaging during the 3 day window. After viewing several possibilities, the group agreed to image the Martian South Pole. Groups from 19 different countries submitted proposals.





Upon having their proposal selected, the group used Google Hangouts to meet with flight control engineers at the ESA to ask questions and discuss the specifics of the imaging process. Mars Express took images for three days and sent the students 750 raw images of the Martian South Pole. Due to low light levels in space, the raw images actually appear black & white. Special image processing techniques must be applied to reveal the true colors. Students watched image processing tutorials offered by the Planetary Society to learn what they needed to know. They downloaded free image processing software (GIMP) and used it to import and process the images. Students learned to view logarithmic histograms of the images to determine the brightness/contrast adjustments, as well as how to apply various digital filters to increase sharpness and improve color levels. Once the images were satisfactory, students researched the south poles of Earth and Mars and created a comparison contrast in the form of a Venn Diagram.  The students have been recognized by the Fulton County Superintendent and the Dekalb County Board of Education.


Aspiration Creation

Aspiration Creation began organically as a group of parents who wanted to ensure that their children were maintaining excellence academically. Corporate learning centers like Kumond and Huntington Learning Center are often prohibitively expensive, and private tutors are often more so. Educational investment is highly indicative of future success, so corporate learning centers and private tutors are essentially a means by which parents can buy their children’s success. With so much riding on education, parents believed it should not depend on financial resources. So, they decided to use the resources already at their disposal to offer tutorials for free. The priority is to ensure that students are mastering the material being taught in school, but they are also immersed in mathematics, science, reading, and history via introduction to advanced concepts, critical thinking, comprehension, and art.  There is no charge for participation.  The only requirement is an open mind and a desire to learn.


Scales of Scalia: A Pragmatic Assessment of Judicial Bias

Mark A. Sequeira

During oral arguments for a Supreme Court affirmative action case, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that schools like The University of Texas were too advanced for African Americans.  Justice Scalia further noted that African Americans would be better served by going to “lesser” schools where they aren’t challenged or pushed as hard.  The Justice’s remarks were predicated on an amicus brief which claimed that preferences in admissions adversely impacted the beneficiaries.  Let’s consider these remarks in context.


It seems appropriate to begin with the document which served as the catalyst for Justice Scalia’s remarks.  This document is known as amicus curiae, Latin for “friend of the court”.  Court cases are generally limited to presentation of factual record or evidence by the litigants, and attorneys tend to present arguments favorable to their clients.  Amicus Curiae is intended to provide objective, neutral third party insight into a case, particularly when the impacts of a judgement could be significant.  The authors of an amicus brief are supposed to offer such insight of their own accord, and not at the request of either party.  So who were the authors of the amicus brief to which Justice Scalia was referring?  The document was authored by UCLA Law Professor, Richard Sander, as a representative of Project SEAPHE (Scale and Effects of Preferences in Higher Education).  Project SEAPHE’s mission is as follows:


“Project SEAPHE is a community of scholars committed to the empirical study of admissions preferences in higher education. We seek to ground the public’s understanding of affirmative action in rigorous, data-driven studies. Members of the project cover a range of disciplines, from economics and statistics to sociology and law.”


The mission less than subtly hints at objectivity; rigorous, data-driven research by a collection of intellectuals with a broad range of expertise.  The mission suggests an earnest, noble undertaking, but minimal probing reveals that their project is completely funded by the Searle Freedom Trust.  The Searle Freedom Trust is a $100 million trust that contributes to various causes.  Some of their grants provided funding for campaigns to advocate cutting government worker pay and reduce public sector services in education.  The Searle Freedom Trust has also been the most frequent supporter of all-expense paid seminars for federal judges.  This is also the same organization covering the legal expenses of Abigail Fisher, plaintiff in the case where Justice Scalia made his remarks.  The amicus curiae filed with the court is far from objective.  In fact, it is shamefully biased.  In short, Justice Scalia’s remarks are based on a document written by an organization fully funded by a wealthy trust which also happens to be covering the legal expenses of the plaintiff.  Oh and said trust also funds the all-expense paid seminars which he attends.


While the biased underpinnings of Justice Scalia’s remarks are easily revealed, such an exposition actually does not address the veracity of his claims or the research upon which they are based.  It is possible that, despite the biased intent, the research actually substantiates the claims.  Richard Sander, who authored the amicus curiae, claims his research demonstrates that preferences (particularly racial) in admissions yield what the literature calls “mismatch effects”.  The idea is that overusing or misusing preferences actually impacts the beneficiaries adversely.  The research cites three types of mismatch: Learning Mismatch, Competition Mismatch, and Social Mismatch.  Learning Mismatch refers to the scenario where preferences put students in an environment that is too rigorous.  As a result, they don’t have a comprehensive grasp of the material taught in the class and eventually graduate without having adequately mastered the content.  This would yield poorer job opportunities and overall career achievement that is subpar relative to their professional peers.  Competition Mismatch is a scenario where preferences allow the admission of students who are not academically prepared for the rigorous curricula of top tier institutions.  Such lack of academic preparation causes students to perform poorly, compelling them to change majors (such as is the case in STEM majors) or flunk out altogether.  Social Mismatch posits that students tend to interact more closely with those of similar academic preparation.  In this case, if preferences are allowing admission of students with less academic preparation, then they will be marginalized.  Sander and other researchers have amassed a substantial collection of literature in support of mismatch effects.  The amicus curiae brief even alludes to their research establishing a causal link.  Nothing would delight me more than to dissect their research by scrutinizing their data mining techniques, critically assessing their choice of statistical modeling, or expounding on the misrepresentation of correlation as causation. Such a critique would not only be beyond the scope of this discourse, but also completely unnecessary since all of their research is based on a false assumption.  Their assumption is that racial preferences (Affirmative Action) seek to grant admission to unqualified Black students (also women and other underrepresented minorities), at the expense of qualified White students.  This is false.  Prior to Affirmative Action, secondary institutions universally and unapologetically excluded qualified African Americans from attending, based solely on skin color.  There were no grades high enough, test scores solid enough, or extracurricular activities noble enough to secure their admission, even amongst much less qualified Whites.  No remotely rational person would deny that this practice was unfair.  Whites were so opposed admitting even one Black person that they opted to start entire schools whose sole purpose it was to educate African Americans.  The extent of this sentiment is evident in that almost 150 such colleges and universities were created in the south alone.  Over 100 of these schools still exist and are generally referred to as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s).  While there are some who compare these schools to all White institutions in an attempt to support the myth of reverse racism, nothing could be further from the truth.  No HBCU ever had a policy or practice to exclude applicants of other races or ethnicities.  Given the historical context of the schools’ creation, there simply were no Whites who would ever opt to attend an HBCU if they could attend even the lowest caliber non-Black institution.  Affirmative action was born out of this dynamic.  The intent of Affirmative Action was (is) to compel institutions to fairly assess qualified applicants from historically disadvantaged groups, of which Black people were a part.  It is important to note that this description also includes White women.  It simply is not the case that colleges and universities are admitting severely underqualified Black students at the expense of top caliber White students.  In the case currently being disputed, Abigail Fisher actually did not meet the qualifications for admissions to The University of Texas.  The University of Texas admits any Texas resident who graduates in the top 10% of their class.  85% of their student body graduated in the top 10% of their class.  The other 15% are admitted as exceptions, based on legacy (parents attended), proficiency in music, athletic prowess, and sometimes gender or race.  Abigail Fisher did not graduate in the top 10% of her class and would have been considered on an exception basis.  Abigail Fisher wasn’t even waitlisted, she was rejected.  While she may be a capable individual, she simply did not meet the academic qualifications to be admitted to The University of Texas.


As a culminating point, let’s consider another aspect of Justice Scalia’s remarks.  While Affirmative Action was certainly the target of his disposition, also evident was his disdain and lack of respect for the institutions which he urged African Americans to attend as an alternative.  He referred to them as “lesser schools”.  What exactly are these less rigorous, less advanced institutions?  Well, Justice Scalia is arguing that African Americans should not attend institutions where preferences are considered.  Only predominantly White institutions have a need for such preferences.  The only institutions where such preferences are not considered are Historically Black Colleges and Universities.  Justice Scalia asserts that, at such institutions, the curricula are less rigorous, thereby allowing African Americans to excel and ultimately graduate.  This is a flawed assertion.  It is true that graduates from HBCU’s excel in many areas and are statistically overrepresented in almost every profession and graduate school.  HBCU graduates account for only 10% of all Black students graduating from college, yet account for 40% of Black professional engineers, 80% of Black judges, and 70% of Black science graduate students at top 10 schools.  As a Morehouse College graduate, these are statistics I proudly reference to potential students, as well as in defense against those who attach such institutions.  The overwhelming success of graduates from these institutions is, however, not predicated upon the facility of the coursework.  Such an assertion is actually quite absurd.  How is it possible that students who matriculate through allegedly less rigorous curricula are able to graduate and suddenly be universally competitive among their peers, domestically and internationally?  Again, the assertion is flawed.  Students at these institutions don’t excel because the coursework is less challenging.  Many graduates of HBCU’s, who subsequently attended institutions like The University of Texas (or Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc.), can attest that the rigor of the coursework and expectations of the professors at HBCU’s often far exceeded those at even the Ivy League institutions where they earned their graduate and professional degrees.  Students excel at HBCU’s because the entire institution is genuinely invested in their success, from the janitors and cafeteria staff to the professors and administration.  Many of the professors and administrators are themselves graduates and would gladly fail you rather than allow you to pass, graduate, and enter the world sullying the reputation of the school they proudly attended.  Students are also personally invested in the success of other students.  Students don’t refuse to study with you or invite you to study sessions where no one else shows up.  Instead, there is a sense of comradery built among students intent on success, the sentiment being “no man left behind”.  This sentiment often also exists among White students at predominantly White institutions, to the exclusion of Black students (and other minorities).  It is this exclusion that often results in underperformance of these students, not pseudo-scholarly fabricated concepts like “mismatch effects”.  Richard Sander and other researchers should instead conduct “rigorous, data driven studies” to assess the components of an HBCU education that cause (not correlate) students to be successful.  The “more advanced” institutions could then utilize the findings to create an academic environment capable of replicating the success of HBCU’s.  Such a strategy is certainly beneficial to the Black students who attend such institutions, but it also benefits other students and the university in general.  There is even the additional benefit to the many HBCU graduates who often attend these institutions to earn graduate and professional degrees.


I suppose there is nothing new about Justice Scalia’s remarks.  He and many others have unabashedly espoused such sentiments for decades.  It is, however, important that we begin to expose such rhetoric, particularly when it is disguised as intellectual discourse or scholarly research.  This type of bigotry is actually more harmful than its more blatant counterparts because it is supported by potent and impactful government, educational, and financial institutions.  Today, on intellectual grounds, I reject Justice Scalia’s remarks, the research that supported such remarks, and the trust that is financing it all.  Your wealth will no longer be enough to maintain the socioeconomic infrastructure of the past.


Homecoming Beneath the Surface

Mark A. Sequeira

Growing up, my Dad always told us that Morehouse made him the man that he was.  I thought about that when it was time for me to choose a college/university.  If Morehouse made men like my Dad, then there was really only one place for me to go.  It was a no-brainer really.  If you were to ask around, you’d likely find that many alumni decided to attend based on their exposure to or interaction with a Morehouse graduate.  A teacher, mentor, neighbor, church member, etc.  One of Morehouse’s most potent recruiting strategies is the shining example of its graduates.  Actually being the man that young boys want to become.  The phenomenology of this can’t be overstated.  There are alumni who didn’t even consider college an option, until a singular Morehouse graduate urged them to at least submit an application.  Morehouse is the kind of place that changes lives, quite literally.


Morehouse will challenge ideas you thought you held firm, redefine misconceptions you accepted as universal, and compel you to pursue the best version of yourself.  This isn’t merely conjecture or exaggerated academic propaganda.  Ask the parents of any alumnus or current student, and they will often proudly exclaim that they could literally see a difference in their son when he came home for Christmas break.  A comprehensive assessment of the academic, pedagogical, ideological, socio-economic impacts of Morehouse (and HBCU’s in general) is beyond the scope of this modest piece.  Several books can (should) be written about this. Now consider this writing to be the introduction paragraph to the preface of just one of those books, and imagine all that such a book would entail.  Individual struggles, perseverance, enlightenment, within the context of an environment conducive to being unapologetically Black.  Homecoming is the annual celebratory manifestation of all these things.  It’s so much more than just a football game.  Quite honestly, the actual football game is a secondary event (sorry football team).  So, the next time you hear someone expressing excitement about Homecoming, don’t roll your eyes.  When you see people posting pictures ad nauseum on social media, don’t say to yourself “What’s the big deal anyway?”  Instead, consider things from our perspective.  At Morehouse we were redefined, renewed, and reborn.  In that sense, Morehouse is every bit of home, and returning home should always be met with superlative celebrations.    Homecoming.


My Dad.  Trying to be like him.


The Liberation of Bliss

Mark A. Sequeira

There has been no shortage of tragedies over the past few years.  Some, like Sandy Hook, make national headlines, while others, such as the Georgia military veteran who killed her 4 children and then herself, dominated local and regional news.  The most recent tragedy involves the shooting of Roanoke news station’s Alison Parker and Adam Ward by former co-worker Vester Flanagan.  As usual there are some who attempt to hijack such a somber event with politics, polemics, and personal agendas.  From blaming the President to anthropogenic climate change, the string-of-beads logic inevitably finds its way into the discourse.  I’ll admit that I sometimes envy the unbridled freedom that such “logic” avails its indifferent interlocutors.  Their arguments almost always seem to conform to a similar mold, a series of false dichotomies from which they draw a usually ambiguous, but almost always wrong, conclusion.  Even worse is when such arguments and conclusions are presented arrogantly and authoritatively, so as to disparage all of their ideological opponents who must surely be divinely relegated to stupidity.  Oh, if only logic had no internally consistent rules to hinder me from espousing rank fecal opinions, then maybe I, too, could engage in intellectual lethargy and experience the proverbial bliss that seems eternally bound to ignorance.  But, alas, logic won’t let me be great.  Or will it?  Maybe bliss isn’t infinitely bound to ignorance.  Perhaps, like most bound states, it only requires the appropriate energy to escape.  Maybe bliss can be liberated via LASER-like logic, tuned appropriately of course.  A philosophical photoelectric effect, of sorts.

The most recent representation of the ignorance-bliss problem revealed itself in a comments section.  It’s true that comments sections are akin to ideological black holes.  So why even address such ideologies?  In keeping with the black hole analogy, much of the information that ends up in a black hole originated somewhere else, and so represents some non-trivial manifestation.  In other words, all those comments represent some non-trivial population of people in our society.  In relation to the recent Texas pool party incident, a Florida principal and a Texas elementary school teacher were fired for their online comments about the incident.  Principals and teachers are far from isolated, socially inept fringe elements of American society.  Even if you take the position that their views were marginal, and therefore insignificant, their positions, and subsequently their influences, in society are not marginal.  I posit that the comment I read is merely representative of a larger segment of society.  The nature of the sentiment posted was: “Where are all the ‘Black Lives Matter’ people when two White people are killed?  Where is the outrage?”  Although I encountered this sentiment in a comments section, it can easily be found in social media, television media, print media, and every day conversation.  Such sentiments are often expressed confidently, with overtones of sarcasm and mockery.  Almost as if that sentiment represents the elusive “gotcha” moment they’ve been tirelessly seeking.  They believe this sentiment is clever.  Let’s see why it is not.

In a country where 78% of the population is White, examples of tragic White deaths abound.  So, let’s consider some of the more recognizable ones.  JonBenet Ramsey, the Oklahoma bombing, Ted Kaczynski (Unibomber), Columbine shooting, 9/11 attacks, Sandy Hook shooting, Boston Marathon bombings, Chattanooga military shootings, etc.  All of these, and more, represented senseless acts of violence committed without remorse.  The victims were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, White.  Black people collectively mourned these unspeakable tragedies, along with the rest of the country.  What Black people did not collectively do is blame the victims for their own deaths.  Black people did not collectively rationalize the actions of the perpetrators in order to justify the brutal nature of their crimes.  Black people did not collectively accuse anyone of overreacting.  Black people did not collectively seek out past misdeeds or mistakes to vilify the victims.  Black people did not collectively set up defense funds to help the perpetrator.  Collectively, Black people mourned, because that is the humane response that a tragedy deserves.  The fundamental reason for this is that, collectively, Black people inherently understand that All Lives Matter.  However, when large segments of the American population refuse to reciprocate compassion for Black lives lost, it compels us to emphasize for the detractors that “All Lives” includes “Black Lives”, hence the phrase “Black Lives Matter”.  The two concepts are not in opposition to each other.  One is a subset of the other, a fact that apparently still requires reiteration.  Fly away, Bliss, you are free.


Appreciating the Symbolic

The recent attack on Emanuel AME Church, wherein 9 parishioners were killed, has prompted discussion on many aspects of American society.  America has been compelled to confront its history of white supremacy and the oppressive violence that it necessitates.  Conversations and debates about the Confederate flag (N.B. any subsequent reference to the Confederate Flag includes the Battle Flag, Navy Jack, any of the three official flags of the Confederacy, and any such variations) naturally emerge from such discussions, as many directly associate that flag with the social, economic, and political institutions created and maintained by racist ideology.  This association aligns with the social and anthropological definition of a symbol, which any flag certainly is.  Just as the Confederate flag is a tangible, material symbol, the very act of flying (or removing) the flag is also symbolic.  Participants in the flag debate can generally be classified in three ways: proponents, opponents, and those who are apathetic.  The views of the proponents and opponents have been thoroughly and passionately presented in the public discourse, but the views of those apathetic to the discourse have not been as comprehensively advanced, due either to the size of their contingency or due to their namesake.  While the reasons for apathy may be many, one will be discussed here, particularly that which dismisses the removal of the flag as a useless gesture of symbolism.  Their argument is that removal of the flag in no way diminishes the actual attitudes and behaviors of those who cleave to the racist ideology of white supremacy.  In other words, it doesn’t matter if you remove the flag because racism will persist unabated in the flag’s absence.  They further proffer that removing the flag is conciliatory at best, disingenuous and deceptive at worst.  I will attempt to address these arguments by introducing the concept of symbolism, as well as by discussing the tangible impacts of symbolism in society.

No meaningful exposition on symbolic gestures is possible without first establishing the definition of “symbol”.  The simplest and most nondescript explanation of a symbol is that it is any object (material or otherwise) that represents something else.  More specifically, a symbol usually represents a complex range of abstract ideas, and it may vary in meaning to different individuals and groups.  How a symbol is interpreted depends on the accumulated knowledge, behaviors, and rituals associated with the symbol. As such, a symbol is dynamic and evolves with the culture of those interpreting it.  In fact, symbols are one of the 5 key components said to comprise culture, the others being language, values, beliefs, and norms.  The field of symbolic anthropology even regards culture as the complex encoding of symbolic creation, interpretation, and behavior.  Preeminent symbolic anthropologist Victor Turner posited that symbols are the mechanisms of social maintenance.  Turner further argued that social cohesion requires continual reinforcement and that symbols play a vital role in such.  In short, the culture of a society creates symbols and establishes their meaning and significance.  Symbols in turn inspire actions, behaviors, institutions, and social dynamics, leading to a reinforcement or reinterpretation of the symbols themselves.

The importance of symbols isn’t merely an academic abstraction.  Historically, when one nation conquered another, it was commonplace to destroy all of the monuments of the vanquished and replace them with tributes to the victor.  This was a symbolic gesture whose purpose was to demoralize the conquered and exact loyalty and obedience through the imposition of power.  The result was often a psychological and behavioral paralysis that deterred dissent.  Another example of tangible symbolism is evident in the doll experiments conducted by psychologists Kenneth Clark and Mamie Clark in the 1940’s.  The experiments involved children being shown a white doll and a black doll and then being asked a series of questions about their perceptions of each.  Overwhelmingly, Black children described the White doll as pretty and virtuous, while describing the black doll as ugly and lacking positive character attributes.  Dolls are unambiguous symbols of beauty and desirability, and the doll experiments exposed the quantifiable psychological effects of such symbolism on African Americans. The results of these experiments were so convincing that they were included as testimony in the Brown versus Education case.

Citing examples of symbolism and its impacts can be done indefinitely, but at best it represents an indirect way of addressing the apathetic argument discounting the removal of the flag.  It addresses the argument by analogy.  Let’s address the argument more directly by examining what would happen if the flag were removed from public sites.  Consider that generations of White children in the south have been taught, at home and in their communities, that the flag represents heritage, virtuous qualities, and noble sensibilities.  When they venture out into the world and see the Confederate Flag flying on state grounds, at schools, parks, and memorials, all that they have learned at home is validated.  With such broad validation they have no reason to question any of what they have been taught.  If their family, community, and state all confirm the same teachings, what other confirmation is needed?  Removing the flag wouldn’t change what children in this generation were taught at home, but it would eliminate the state validation of such teachings.  So, for the first time, children might be compelled to question why the state decisively acted in opposition to their home teachings.  Such interrogation might lead them to the truth.

There is another way to interpret the symbolic gesture of removing the flag.  Consider that the decision to fly the Confederate Flag in the first place was made by those who support it, without consideration of or consent from opponents.  In other words, Whites decided to fly the flag, and Black people had no say in the matter.  That was the social dynamic that existed.  Removal of the flag demonstrates that there is a portion of whites who now think differently about the matter and that Black disapproval of the flag must be earnestly considered.  In the past, a Black woman climbing a flagpole on southern state grounds and removing the Confederate Flag would have been met with violent (probably fatal) results.  This represents a changing social dynamic, and while removing the flag in no way removes racist ideology, it is a start.  The same could be said of emancipation, the 15th Amendment, or any other act instituted to advance the standing of African Americans in American society.  There is no moral mandate to choose between removing the flag and dismantling racism.  There is social, economic, political, intellectual, and moral capacity to accomplish both.


A Little History

Unraveling the Flag

Mark A. Sequeira

Recent events in Charleston have reignited a discussion on the meaning and appropriateness of the Battle Flag.  Proponents defend the flag, arguing that its true meaning represents noble Southern virtues, but that it has been coopted by white supremacist groups to espouse hate and to inflict violence upon people of African descent in America.  Opponents of the flag counter that the flag itself represents hate, violence, and state-sanctioned enslavement and oppression.  These types of long-standing disputes are often characterized by some combination of truth, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or outright fabrication, each faction of course claiming truth for themselves, while accusing the opposing side of the latter.  Identifying the truth of historical events is often hindered by lack of information, absence of documentation, and propaganda.  The Civil War, the Confederacy, and the history of the Battle Flag are no exceptions, but there are some historical certainties, many of which have been codified in text.  While a comprehensive assessment of the political and socioeconomic factors contributing to secession and subsequent civil war are beyond the scope of this text, a cursory review will hopefully illuminate some key points relative to recent discussions about the Battle Flag.

It seems appropriate to begin by declaring that the Battle Flag (see below), as we recognize it, was never officially the flag of the Confederate States of America.


This flag was designed by William Porcher Miles.  Miles was the chair of the newly created “Committee on the Flag and Seal” and proposed his design as the official Confederate flag, but it was rejected in favor of the first of three flags that would be formally recognized as the national flag.  The first flag of the Confederacy was known as the “Star and Bars” flag (see below).


It initially had seven stars arranged in a circle, representing the first seven states to secede.  Additional stars were added each time the Confederacy accepted a new state.  This flag garnered criticism within the Confederacy for being too similar to the Union flag.  Additionally, Confederate generals voiced concerns that the flag was often difficult to distinguish from the Union flag in battle, particularly when it was hanging limp.  These objections prompted design of a second flag (see below), “The Stainless Banner”, designed by William T. Thompson.

Stainless Banner2

This flag was the Battle Flag (designed by William Porcher Miles), set on an all white background.  Its designer, William T. Thompson, described its significance in the Savannah Daily Morning News (April 23, 1863):

“As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.”

Thompson later reinforced that idea, again in the Savannah Daily Morning News (May 4, 1863):

“As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism.”

This flag flew from 1863 to 1865, when a third and final flag would be adopted.  The third flag (see below) was the “Blood-Stained Banner” and flew until the end of the war.


After the First Battle of Manassas, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard opined that the “Stars and Bars” flag (the first officially adopted flag) was difficult to distinguish from the Union flag in battle.  He, therefore, proposed having two flags, an official flag and a battle flag.  William Porcher Miles, whose flag had been rejected in favor of the “Stars and Bars” flag, was a friend of General Beauregard and proposed his design as the new battle flag.  President Jefferson Davis approved this proposal, and the battle flags were distributed first to General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.  The battle flags were used throughout the rest of the war.

William T. Thompson was clear about the intended meaning of his flag, but it could be argued that his position on the matter was personal and not representative of the official position of the Confederate States of America.  There are several documents that reveal the official position of the Confederate States.  When each of the 13 states seceded from the Union, they forged a document formally absolving all ties with the Union.  These documents were known as an Ordinance of Secession (each state’s can be found at ).  6 of the 13 seceding states (Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) also issued separate documents declaring the causes and justifications for secession (can be found at ).  Each state’s declaration of causes identifies slavery prominently as a reason for secession.  The Mississippi declaration states:

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.  Its labor supplied the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.”

As reasons for secession, Mississippi cites of the Union:

“It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits,

denying the power of expansion.”

“It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.”

South Carolina cites as its reason:

“Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied  the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Texas (personified by “She” and “her”) characterizes their admission to the Confederacy as such:

“She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery—the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits—a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.”

Texas’ position on slavery is such:

“the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.  They demand the abolition of the negro slavery throughout the Confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as the negro slave remains in these States.”

Additionally, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens gave an address (found here ) in Savannah on March 21, 1861.  His address outlined the improvements of the new Confederate constitution over the Union constitution.  Stephens states clearly the reason for war:

“The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution of African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.  This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”

Stephens further notes:

“Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the ‘storm came and the wind blew.’ Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

It is also noteworthy to consider the Confederate Constitution itself.  Article I Section 9(4) states:

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

This article was added specifically to guarantee and protect the institution of slavery.  Article IV Section 3(3) addresses the Confederate Congress’ power to acquire new territory and legislate government for the inhabitants of the newly acquired territories.  It states explicitly:

“In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and the Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate States.”

William T. Thompson declared the emblematic meaning of the flag he designed.  The ordinances of secession, as well as the declarations of causes of each seceding state prominently emphasized the maintenance and expansion of slavery as reasons and justifications for absolving ties with the Union.  Vice President, Alexander Stephens, declared in no uncertain terms that African slavery and white supremacy were the “corner-stone” upon which the new Confederate government rests.  The Constitution of the Confederate States explicitly requires that any territories seeking admission into the Confederacy be legally bound to institute slavery and enforce all laws protecting it.  The flag commonly associated with the Confederacy was not only intended to be a battle flag or a flag representing the heritage and virtues of the South.  Its designers publicly and unapologetically declared its emblematic representation of slavery and white supremacy, and the Confederate government chose that flag (battle flag on a white background to symbolize the white race’s superiority over Africans) to represent the same ideals as were codified in its constitution and in the ordinances of secession of each of the 13 states.  Without addressing the resurgence of the Battle Flag as a state-sanctioned objection to Civil Rights or its emblazoned display by hate groups to symbolize their racial ideologies and violent behaviors, it is well documented that the Battle Flag has, since its conception, represented white supremacist ideology.

One of the problems is that many of the southerners who espoused or believed in white supremacist ideologies were probably good husbands, loving fathers, and “respectable” people in their churches and communities.  So, those who are the progeny of such people have often only been exposed to the noble, virtuous qualities of their ancestors.  They either don’t know or willfully deny that the family members they have known, loved, or heard endearing stories about often exhibited completely contradictory qualities in their interactions with Blacks.  How could a person simultaneously embody such dichotomous ethical and moral principles?  Simple, they had to manufacture a disconnect, which was that Blacks were less than human, affording them divinely authorized and prescribed subhuman treatment.  There is no other way to explain how a man could love his family, endear himself to the community, pray in church, yet hang someone from a tree or burn them alive, often in a publicly celebratory manner with children in attendance. In our current society, the overwhelming majority of mentally stable people can quite easily admit that such behavior was barbaric, but what’s more difficult is reconciling the fact that such a person may have been a friend of the family, a neighbor, a pastor, or a relative.  So, to avoid such agonizing reconciliation, the narrative is transformed and the flag becomes a symbol of Southern heritage, virtue, and lifestyle.  The problem with this is that it ignores the people at whose brutal expense that heritage and lifestyle were forged and maintained.

This evidence in no way absolves the North of their contributions to white supremacy.  It should be well understood that the North did not wage war to abolish the institution of slavery.  If Lincoln could have kept the Union together without abolishing slavery, he certainly would have.  He even said as much during his first term.  The North also had no economic interest in abolishing slavery since a significant portion of their economy benefitted from it.  The North was the industrialized center of the country, and the ships that were used to transport slaves were constructed in northern shipyards.  The cotton picked by slaves was transported to the Northern mills to manufacture clothing and other textiles, including clothes for slaves.  There was a significant portion of Northern industry that was supported by the institution of slavery, and its abolition would have been a severe blow to the economy.  Northern citizens and officials alike understood this and, therefore, initially resisted including emancipation as a provision of war.  So, it is understood that equally egregious atrocities have been committed under the jurisdiction of the Union flag.  There is one major difference.  The Union flag represented a nation that was criticized for failing to live up to its ideals (All men created equally; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), those explicitly stated in the Constitution, whereas the Battle flag is criticized for representing a nation that aggressively pursued and instituted its ideals (cornerstone rests upon the Divine truth that enslavement is the natural and normal condition of Blacks).  Perception matters, history matters, symbols matter, the flag matters.