Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After attacks, many Southerners fly different flag
The Charleston Post & Courier ^ | October 29, 2001 | ELLEN B. MEACHAM

Posted on 10/29/2001 11:26:49 AM PST by aomagrat

Until recently, if you saw a red, white and blue flag sticker on a Southern pickup truck, odds were good that it was a Confederate flag.

That was before Sept. 11.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks, the once-prominent symbol beloved by both unreconstructed Southern partisans and Civil War buffs has been swamped in a wave of national unity.

American flags are popping up on cars, outside homes and businesses - and even on horse-drawn carriages in the city where the Civil War started.

In Charleston, unlike New York or California, the Stars and Stripes can often be seen displayed beside the controversial Confederate battle flag.

One local bumper sticker even has a message for Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network, "Terrorists: Your soul is the devil's and your butt's America's."

The sticker features a Confederate flag.

Another depicts both the U.S. and the Confederate battle flag and says "red-blooded American."

Area flag merchants say sales of Confederate flags have remained steady even as sales of U.S flags have increased.

"My American flag sales have increased 100-fold," Gary Shelton, president of 1abcstore.com in St. Simons, Ga., said. His Confederate flag sales are about the same.While it might strike some as inconsistent to fly the flag created by people who wanted to dissolve the United States next to the American flag during a time of national crisis, many in the region do not see it that way, says political science Professor Bill Moore of the College of Charleston.

"In general, I don't feel Southerners see it as inconsistent. You do have a few ultra-nationalists who would still like to secede from the Union. However, most of those who maintain a strong identity with the Confederate flag incorporate it into a historical context," he said.

In the Southerner's view, loyalty to the historical South is not necessarily incompatible with contemporary values as Americans, Moore said.

"Collectively, Southerners do tend to be stronger supporters of the military than their non-Southern counterparts and value a military career more," he said.

Also, because of limited immigration into the region and less exposure to different cultures, Southerners can be more parochial and suspicious of foreign populations than other Americans, and are thus more likely to support action on behalf of American interests abroad, he said.

Sen. Glenn McConnell is one of the brokers of the compromise that brought the Confederate flag down from the Statehouse dome to a monument on the Capitol grounds in 2000, and owns a Confederate memorabilia shop in North Charleston.

McConnell's sales of Confederate flags have continued and are unaffected by the terrorist attacks. He says he flies both an American flag and a Confederate flag and sees no inconsistency in his actions.

"We see it as a patriotic emblem of our ancestors, but the nation's moved on since then. We think our ancestors stood up for a Constitutional principle that was still considered an option back then - the issue of whether states can secede from the Union - and the issue was resolved on the battlefield. We had an unpleasant disagreement amongst ourselves, and it was settled. So now, if you punch at the United States, you've struck at all of us," he said.

Some Confederate flag supporters do embrace the flag as a separatist symbol. Before the attacks, neo-Confederate messages, like Southern independence, were said to be gaining traction, especially in the angry wake of several regional controversies. Debates about the removal of the flag from the South Carolina Statehouse, the changing of the Georgia state flag and a contentious vote on the Mississippi state flag riled Southern partisans and fans of Southern history alike.

In 1997, Michael Hill, president of the League of the South, wrote in one of his publications that "the American flag has, in fits and starts, come to stand for a corrupt central regime that increasingly visits upon its citizen-subjects expropriations that would have driven our ancestors to active resistance."

Hill said he considers himself an American, and he claims that Southerners are more American than people from other regions. He said the Confederate flag is the flag that truly represents states' rights and a Constitutional government.

On the other hand, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group that also has been on the forefront in the battles over the public display of the Confederate flag, took a much different position.

After the attacks, the SCV's national commander-in-chief, Ed Deason, immediately issued a statement on behalf of its 30,000 members expressing sympathy and support of President Bush, Congress and the government and affirmed its intentions to "join all patriotic Americans."

That move is harmonious with the organization's mission, spokeswoman Lynda Moreau said.

"We were chartered over 100 years ago as a patriotic and benevolent organization. Our mission is to defend the good name of the Confederate soldier. The SCV does not advocate secession," she said.

Many of its current members are veterans who fought in the armed forces during wartime.

"They fought for this country, and they stand behind it. That doesn't mean they honor the Confederate flag any less. They honor both," she said.

The Rev. Joe Darby of the Morris Avenue Missionary Baptist Church in Charleston, who is first vice president of the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, views the issue differently. The NAACP continues its efforts to boycott the state because of the location of the flag on the Statehouse grounds and will raise it, as well as other issues, again in the next legislative session.

To Darby, the Confederate flag is a symbol of disunity in a time when the nation's citizens should come together.

"We need to be unified at a time like this. While I don't think everyone who flies it (the battle flag) is a member of a hate group, I would not fly it. When I see it, I see a symbol of white, antebellum unity. That leaves me out of the picture," he said.

Darby acknowledges that there are South Carolinians who see no conflict in flying both flags.

"What do I think when I see both flags flying together? I guess I rejoice that we live in a country where people can hold strange views," he said.

Since the Civil War, major events such as the terrorist attacks have moved Southerners toward a stronger view of themselves as Americans first and Southerners second, even if they created some subconscious tugs between regional and national loyalties along the way, writes Charles Reagan Wilson in his 1980 book "Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920."

"The Spanish American War and World War II provided the perfect backdrop for Southern ministers to identify again with the values of the American nation," he writes.

"In 1917 the raising of Old Glory on Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans became a symbolic event marking renewed patriotism. Ministers even wrote poems praising the flag, although acceptance of the prime symbol of national unity created a tension with continuing adoration for the equally potent Confederate battle flag," Wilson writes.

One Southern writer of the time, according to Wilson, suggested "that Southerners should still 'consecrate in our hearts our old battle flag of the Southern Cross'," but that it should be honored not as '"a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of a heroic epoch.'"

In Charleston, evidence of those competing loyalties still remains.

Until May, the Old South Carriage Company downtown displayed three flags, the United States flag, the state flag and the Confederate flag. However, the flags were stolen on Mother's Day weekend and have not yet been replaced, manager Kay Motley said. When they are replaced, one flag will still represent the Confederacy, but it will be another, less controversial flag, she said.

The company currently displays an American flag inside its barn and quickly put American flags on its carriages after the terrorist attacks.

"We're proud of our Southern heritage. Our company is named Old South, but we are patriotic enough to add American flags to our carriages at a time like this," Motley said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dixie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
You miss the point. The main advantage to the South from the trade free zone would be that they would be able to import goods for themselves from Europe, without paying the exorbitant tariff and those goods could be transported inland, via the Mississippi, to the rest of the southern trade free zone. They weren't previously in the business of transporting and selling European goods to the North, why would they start under the circumstances. What you don't seem to understand is the bind in which the North had the South. Unlike the North, the South needed the European market for their produce. Once their goods were sold, lacking today's facilities for exchange, they needed to purchase goods where they were paid. The tariff wasn't used against them protectively, it was simply a means for the North to exploit them financially. The tariff you suggest would have been paid by Northerners, and I don't think the South would have cared. Protection and raising revenue are conflicting purposes of a tariff; in the case of the South, the government was interested in the revenue raising feature, not the protective feature.
301 posted on 11/08/2001 10:09:27 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
"Direct imports to the south were relatively small in total volume."

If that is the case, why did they care so much about the tariff? Enough that it was a major motive for secession?

302 posted on 11/08/2001 10:31:56 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
You strive to have your personal opinion to be the final word.

I will rely upon those that were there. A newspaper in March 1861:

It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States to the Union. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States; but it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.

The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties.

303 posted on 11/08/2001 11:55:39 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And by the way, if you want to engage in some more idle speculation on how the South would raise money, I will let you wrestle with that.

But in case you need some facts to help you along, enjoy:

If the Confederacy wanted an army the size of the Union, in 1860 it would have cost $16 million. If they wanted a navy to match the Union, in 1860 it would have cost another $11 million. Operation of a government less than 25% the size of the Union, $4 million.

Grand total of $31 million.

Value of total Southern exports in 1859 was $208 million, bringing in a like valued import amount at an 8% tariff, and what do you have? Left over $16 million? About $3 a person of personal taxes? Check my math.

They would just charge those yankee traders a port tax.

304 posted on 11/08/2001 12:15:57 PM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; Non-Sequitur
This from the Evening Post of new York, Mar. 12, 1861; editorial entitled: What shall be done for a revenue?

"That either revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importation from abroad... If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not one ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports."

305 posted on 11/08/2001 12:47:41 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
All right, now I understand the point you were trying to make. But I still think that you are overestimating the danger the the northern economy. When the confederate market changed from domestic to export the northern manufactureres could probably have been quite competative with the European imports. One thing is for sure, the south would have had to turn to one or the other. They were incapable of supplying themselves.
306 posted on 11/08/2001 12:53:12 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
The problem with that is that the south didn't want an army the size of the Federal Army in 1860. They passed legislation authorizing an army of 100,000. Your $16 million just became $80 million. And the army of 1860 wasn't starting from scratch, the confederate army was.

Value of total Southern exports in 1859 was $208 million, bringing in a like valued import amount at an 8% tariff, and what do you have?

You have the end of your claims to a free trade zone, among other things.

307 posted on 11/08/2001 12:56:13 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Free trade can be interpreted somewhat loosely; it need not mean no tariff, but rather a moderate tariff consistent with the costs of the importing nation in maintaining ports, etc - i.e. a reasonable user fee. The Northern tariffs were far greater than the 8-10% range which the South contemplated.
308 posted on 11/08/2001 1:20:16 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
If that is the case, why did they care so much about the tariff? Enough that it was a major motive for secession?

It is false to say that tariffs were even a minor irritant, or cause of the war.

Consider:

"The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000. The population of the whole US in 1860 was 33,443,321. Thus, Federal taxation per capita was less than $2 per person. Even if the 9,103,332 people in the soon-to-secede Southern states paid all of the Federal taxation in 1860 (which they did not), their per capita cost would still have been less than $7 for the entire year. From these inconsequential sums, another secessionist myth has been created and sustained for 140 years.

Be that as it may, the record shows that tariffs were an irritant, however irrational, to Southern interests up to 1846. In that year, accordingly, Federal tariffs were generally lifted in response to Southern pressures and in favor of free trade. From 1846 until early 1861, what was essentially a free trade regime existed in the whole of the USA. It was only after (and because) rebellion broke out that the US Congress passed the hated Morrill tariffs.

It is instructive to note again that the tariffs that the South protested before the ACW were actually taxes on goods and services imported into the South. In the real world, these imports included significant proportions of luxury goods such as fine British furniture and whiskey, French fashions and perfumes and Cuban rums and cigars. Most of these things were available from the North, and Northern interests wanted to protect their markets in both North and South by adding costs to their foreign competition. Likewise, the South also wanted to protect its markets in the North on products produced in the South but not the North. Accordingly, well before the ACW, southern legislators in the US Congress sought and received substantial tariffs on imports impinging on the domestic markets of Southern agricultural products. For example, the prewar sugar growers of the deep South and the hemp growers of the upper South got protective Federal tariffs on imported products from their foreign competition.

In point of fact, the long-standing Federal sugar import tariff imposed to protect Louisiana sugar growers was extensively debated at the Montgomery Convention and, in spite the highly-touted Confederate devotion to free trade principles, was retained in the Confederacy through out the ACW. Additionally, the Confederacy placed tariffs on exports, including a duty on exported cotton. I repeat here for emphasis --- tariffs on Southern cotton exports were prohibited by the US Constitution. So much for high secessionist principles concerning tariffs! They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, as goes the modern formula for hypocrisy.

It is humorous to note that the prewar Federal iron import tariff, so despised by Secessionist firebrands, was continued by the Confederacy after some of the realities of fiscal and industrial policy set in. On 16 February 1861 the Provisional Confederate Congress blithely passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. A month later, however, fiscal realities set in and an ad valorem import tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15%
--- a rate confirmed in the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861. For further details, see Robert C. Black's THE RAILROADS OF THE CONFEDERACY (Chapel Hill, NC: U. of NC Press, 1998)."

-from the AOL ACW forum.

Walt

309 posted on 11/09/2001 5:41:51 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States;

I'm glad to see there is no longer any confusion on the cause of the war.

Walt

310 posted on 11/09/2001 5:45:14 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
WP, that was from a Boston newspaper, so if you think they were "getting it right", maybe so.

I still don't think you read very carefully. Go back and look at what the article was saying.

311 posted on 11/09/2001 6:39:49 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Your source is false.

It says:

Be that as it may, the record shows that tariffs were an irritant, however irrational, to Southern interests up to 1846. In that year, accordingly, Federal tariffs were generally lifted in response to Southern pressures and in favor of free trade. From 1846 until early 1861, what was essentially a free trade regime existed in the whole of the USA. It was only after (and because) rebellion broke out that the US Congress passed the hated Morrill tariffs.

Here is the truth:

1860 Tariff revenue=$53,188,000.

1855 Tariff revenue=$53,026,000.

So, From 1846 until early 1861, what was essentially a free trade regime existed in the whole of the USA is essentially a lie.

In fact, your famous quote of the Lifeline of the Confederacy document, if you add the figures, shows that tariff revenues in 1857 were $63,876,000.

So, your post is either ignorance or someone is lying to you.

312 posted on 11/09/2001 7:01:14 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
By the way, before you start spouting off about sources, that data came from the International Transactions and Foreign Commerce section of the Historical Statistics of the United States, page 106.

Assuming you still believe your source, if you visit section U 207-212 you can find that the percentage of imports that duty was paid on in 1841 was 50%. By 1845 that had increased to 90%. By 1850 it was 91%.

Your source is really wacky.

313 posted on 11/09/2001 7:08:33 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

bump
314 posted on 11/09/2001 7:11:56 AM PST by Drennan Whyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Two things here regarding your straw-man assertions. We are talking Southern economy, based on war or peace? You asked about how the South would run its economy.

Well you decided on a war economy. That would be entirely based on credit. The data I gave you was for a peace time economy. Second, apparently you don't do any reading, or you would have seen the tariff rate that was legislated.

315 posted on 11/09/2001 7:14:29 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000

By the way, if" Federal tariffs were generally lifted in response to Southern pressures and in favor of free trade" where did the $56 million come from?

316 posted on 11/09/2001 7:19:12 AM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Constitution Day
Where is the largest Klan group today? the state of PA - not a Southern state.

Non-Sequitur = Non-Sense

317 posted on 11/09/2001 7:25:17 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
It's not me who was proposing the 'war time economy', it was the confederate congress when they passed legislation authorizing an army of 100,000 on March 5, 1861. That would require a considerably larger budget than that for the Federal army since that was less than 1/6th that size.

The tairiff rate was legislated? Well, duh. Same as up North. The confederate congress could have set it as high as they wanted to. But since you hold out the free trade zone stuff they would have had to find their money elsewhere.

318 posted on 11/09/2001 7:33:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Bump!
319 posted on 11/09/2001 7:34:21 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
That tariffs - by which I refer to U.S. tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. - were a major motive behind secession is acknowledged by even such authors as James McPherson who is now a major propagandist for the "Northern point of view", (see his recent NYT revue of "The Reel History). So I find it difficult to take seriously your characterization of it as a minor irritant, or of the southern reaction to it as irrational.

As I said in my post 301 above, the south was in a position where it , of necessity, exported to Europe and England. Of necessity it in turn imported goods from them. (Not all luxury goods either. In spite of some cloth and clothing manufacture in the Northeast, in the period prior to 1861 cloth and clothing were a significant component of U.S. imports.) This made them sitting ducks for the Northern dominated governments tariff policies, used against the South as a revenue raising means, not as a protection measure. See the newspaper editorial in my post 305, the source for that contains more in the same vein.

Unfortunately, the sources that I have at hand are light on details such as tariff rates and amounts of revenue produced by these tariffs on southern imports. I will try to get some of these details, and, perhaps, get back to you.

"It is false to say that tariffs were even a minor irritant, or cause of the war."

That statement is false. As for your earlier statement that there is no right of secession in the constitution, (which you immediately, unwittingly, declare a fiction) that may be true. However, the existence of the right doesn't depend on its being in the constitution. The constitution does not and cannot grant rights, they pre-exist it and can only be asserted in the constitution, as in the bill if rights.

320 posted on 11/09/2001 7:39:41 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson