EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnEXECUTIVE EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnART DIRECTORrnH. Ward SterettrnDESIGNERrnMelanie AndersonrnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnKatherine Dalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rn].0. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Mills, William Murchison,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob NeusnerrnFOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITORrnSrdja TrifkovicrnLEGAL AFFAIRS EDITORrnStephen B. PresserrnRELIGION EDITORrnHarold O.J. BrownrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnCIRCULWION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn928 North Main Street, Rockford, IE 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-50H.rnAdxcrtising Phone: (81 5) %4-SSB.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IE 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Wav, 12406 Rt. 250,rnMilan. Ohio 44848-9705.rnCopTight © 2000 by lire Rockford Institute.rn.Ml rights resened.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-57311 is publishedrnuronthK’ for $39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface deliverv’, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford, IE 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices, POSTMASTER: Send addressrnchanges to Ckmnicki: P.O. Box SOO.rnMount Morris, IL 61054.rnThe icws expressed in Chronicles are thernautliors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrntire -iews of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied b’ a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.24, No.4 April :noorn[‘niitwl ill the Uiiit«ISl:ile:^oi,-iiii.ticarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn the Council ofrnConservative CitizensrnClyde Wilson is simply wrong when hernwrites that “the Council of ConservativernCitizens was not responsible for savingrnour flag” and that the Council’s “efforts,rnincluding rallies by tattooed motorcyclernthugs and David Duke followers, havernbeen resoundingly counterproductive —rnjust what the media wanted” (“LetterrnFrom South Carolina,” Correspondence,rnJanuary).rnIn the first place, the political controversyrninvolving the Confederate flag thatrnflies over the South Carolina state capitolrnbegan in 1994, when grassroots supportrnfor keeping the flag was mobilized by thernCofCC’s South Carolina chapter and itsrnchairman, Dr. Bill Carter. The CofCCrnwas the only organized group in the staterninvolved in defending the flag at a timernwhen most observers believed it wouldrnbe removed from the capitol. It wasn’t—rnalmost entirely because of the efforts ofrnthe Council and Dr. Carter.rnSince that time, other Southern heritagerngroups have become involved in defendingrnthe flag, though the CofCC continuesrnto play a leading role in its defense.rnIn 1996, we sponsored a mass rally thatrndisplayed the world’s largest Confederaternflag and attracted both wide popular supportrnand major media attention. Last October,rnthe Council organized anotherrnmass rally at the capitol that attractedrnsome 500 flag supporters. David Dukerndid speak to an audience after our rallyrnwas finished, and presumabh’ many ofrnhis followers were also in our audience.rnBut Mr. Duke is not a member of thernCouncil and did not speak at the CofCCrnrally.rnAs for “tattooed motorcycle thugs,”rnsome may have been present at one orrnmore CofCC rallies for the flag, but CynthiarnTucker, editorial page editor of thernAtlanta Constitution and no friend of thernCouncil, is far more accurate in her characterizationrnof Council membership in arnFebruary 14, 1999, column in her newspaper.rnThe CofCC, she writes, “is madernup of upstanding, upright, churchgoingrnfolk—doctors, dentists, lawyers, businessmen.rnAnd its members—some Republicans,rnsome Democrats —have claimedrnimportant political positions. Across thernSouth, especially in Alabama, Mississippi,rnand South Carolina, its members arernstate legislators, city council members,rnstate officials.” Miss Tucker is entirelyrnaccurate in this description of CofCCrnmembership and achievements.rnIt is unfortunate that Professor Wilson’srnill-informed remarks not only reflectrnthe media bias against the CofCCrnand similar conser’ative, pro-flag groupsrnbut also contribute to the divisivenessrnthat has harmed the campaign to preservernthe Confederate flag in the placesrnof honor in which it belongs.rn— Gordon Lee BaumrnChief Executive OfficerrnCouncil of Conservative CitizensrnSt. Louis, MOrnI have subscribed to your fine magazinernfor several years now and have read manyrninteresting and informative articles byrnClyde Wilson. I was shocked, however,rnby some of Dr. Wilson’s disparagingrncomments about the South CarolinarnCouncil of Conservative Citizens. Hisrnreference to Council members as “tattooedrnmotorcycle thugs and David Dukernfollowers” was most unkind.rnMr. Duke is a controversial figure inrnthe Council, with both his admirers andrndetractors, but to characterize all Dukernsupporters as somehow disreputable isrnpatently unfair. As a member of thernCouncil of Conservative Citizens (and, Irnmight add an avid motorcyclist), I havernhad the pleasure of ineeting many membersrnof the South Carolina chapter, nonernof whom I would describe as a thug.rnClyde Wilson seems to be of the opinionrnthat political victor’ in the flag debaterncan be won solely by a coalition of aristocratsrnand academics, the same groupsrnthat largely ran from the battiefield duringrnthe desegregation battles of the 50’srnand 60’s, leaving middle- and workingclassrnwhite Southerners in the lurch.rnThe Council of Conservative Citizensrnhas a role to play in the defense of symbolsrnof Southern heritage. Dr. Wilsonrnshould put aside his snobbishness andrnwork with the Council, not against it.rn— Kenneth J. SchmidtrnUpper Montclair, N/rnDr. Wilson Replies:rnMv reference to the CofCC was made inrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn