Looking at the upside-down flag in a national park through a security lens, what we’re witnessing appears to be the latest chapter in America’s longest-running internal conflict. This signals a struggle that never truly ended with pro-slavery leaders’ unconditional surrender to General Grant at Appomattox.
On March 1, 1872, Grant signed the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act, which made the area “a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” This landmark legislation created the first National Park and led to the creation of the National Park Service. […] While at West Point, Grant read countless novels about frontier life and painted landscapes in art class. Most likely, he was captivated by the expedition’s paintings and adventures. As a boy, Grant enjoyed “fishing, going to the creek a mile away to swim in summer, … skating on the ice in winter, or taking a horse and sleigh when there was snow on the ground.” – Grant, Memoirs
President Grant’s establishment of Yellowstone as the first national park in 1872 was far more than conservation policy, it was an overt declaration that America’s natural resources belonged to all citizens, not merely for the exploitation of those with the most capital or connections. He had defeated the horrible elitist “monster” of the Confederacy at war, so too he would defeat them in protection of national ecology.
President Grant also had regularly rejected graft and fraud, initiating a measure of merit and performance instead, as evidenced in his many decisive victories on the battlefield against the philandering, plundering and inebriated Confederates. As President he initiated a system to investigate and reduce patronage, which quickly exposed huge amounts of American corruption like never before.
The purposeful and fair democratization of public lands thus was a clear-eyed line that represented the direct repudiation of white supremacist extractive plantation aims, where wealth and resources were concentrated in the hands of a privileged few based on their race and patronage alone.
The Buffalo Soldiers were deployed as early park rangers to extend this vision (Yosemite, Sequoia and General Grant National Parks, in 1899, 1903 and 1904), embodying the promise of equality and Reconstruction. America’s institutions would protect the common good across racial lines. Their presence in these sacred spaces was itself a statement that the racist, tyrannical order trying to control America had been defeated.
Fun history fact: these Buffalo Soldiers also were issued bicycles by the U.S. Army and thus arguably invented modern mountain biking.
What we’re seeing today is a very-targeted and methodical dismantling of the Reconstruction-era protections, by the kind of people still very angry they lost the war to preserve and expand slavery. The mass firing of park rangers, the planned opening of protected lands to extraction industries, and the consolidation of decision-making power in the hands of unelected wealthy individuals follows a simple criminal’s playbook. It’s essentially an attempt to reverse President Grant’s vision and flip America into a monarchy where public resources serve oppressive private interests of a few bad actors.
The targeting of conservation lands is strategically significant and symbolic of the KKK objectives. These aren’t just parks, they’re the government’s commitment to placing public good over private profits by a tiny elite undermining American values. This targeted attack and very overt weakening signal is a fundamental shift in the relationship between citizens and their government.
Throughout American history, a specific coalition of white men have consistently worked to roll back all protections for public resources and the commons whenever they’ve gained sufficient power. The current assault on national parks represents not just a policy shift but the reassertion of the pro-slavery ideology that was supposedly defeated both militarily and politically 160 years ago.
The upside-down flag at Yosemite is a very appropriate signal as it is indeed a moment of national distress that echoes the worst periods in American history.
From a national security angle the systematic dismantling of federal land management capabilities creates vulnerabilities beyond just environmental concerns. National parks and public lands serve as strategic buffers, ecological security zones, and controlled spaces that reduce domestic instability.
There’s a crucial intelligence dimension here too. Land management professionals often serve as the government’s eyes and ears in remote regions, tracking everything from illegal border crossings to domestic extremist activity. Their removal creates surveillance gaps that adversaries, both foreign and domestic, can exploit.
The resource extraction angle has geopolitical implications. Rushing to extract domestic resources rather than managing them strategically over time weakens America’s long-term energy and resource security posture. Short-term profit-taking creates long-term dependencies and vulnerabilities.
Perhaps most concerning is the attack on institutional knowledge. The mass firing of experienced federal employees erases decades of accumulated expertise in crisis management, land stewardship, and public safety. This institutional knowledge vacuum will take generations to rebuild.
The historical record is unequivocal: civilizations that sacrifice long-term resource stewardship for short-term extraction invariably collapse. The Romans deforested their heartlands for immediate profit; the Maya depleted their soil and water systems. Both empires disintegrated as environmental degradation triggered social breakdown and conflict. Today’s dismantling of conservation systems follows this familiar pattern, with a critical difference – modern elites possess unprecedented mobility. Unlike ancient rulers who fell with their realms, today’s architects of extraction can deploy their wealth globally, insulating themselves from the consequences of their policies. They create extractive systems they never intend to inhabit long-term – building structures of profit and control while preparing their own exits when the inevitable resource conflicts begin… like we saw with Assad in 2024 Syria, or Siad Barre led by Paul Manafort (Trump advisor) in 1992 Somalia.
The targeted dismantling of specific agencies reveals calculated strategy, not just ideological zeal. The systematic weakening of resource protections follows a pattern familiar since the Jacksonian era – first dismantle the guardrails, then transfer public wealth to private hands. Throughout American history, control over land and resources has been the foundation of political power. Today’s dismantling of conservation systems echoes Jackson’s approach to public lands – identify what has value, remove the protections, then enable extraction by the well-connected. The playbook hasn’t changed in two centuries; only the resources in question have.
[In the] days of 1854, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society called for a rally on July 4 amid the bucolic oaks of Framingham’s Grove. […] Above, hung an inverted U.S. flag…
The upside-down flag at Yosemite serves as both warning and reminder. It alerts us to immediate dangers facing democracy while reminding us that the struggle to preserve America’s natural heritage for all citizens has deep historical roots. From President Grant’s vision of public access to natural resources to his Soldiers and Rangers who protect these spaces, our national parks represent more than scenic beauty—they embody a national commitment to shared prosperity over concentrated power.
Today’s hostile elite threats to these lands aren’t merely policy disagreements but echo a recurring attack pattern in American history: the tension between long-term public good and destructive short-term extraction. As we witness an immediate danger, we would do well to remember that protected lands represent not just conservation but a fundamental American principle that a nation’s greatest treasures belong to the public, not merely a few white men seizing control for selfish-exploitation.
The correct and necessary distress signal has been raised; how we respond will determine whether Grant’s gift – the greatest General and President in history – endures for generations to come.
