The war on Southern Heritage continues.
Posted on 08/17/2002 4:28:33 AM PDT by aomagrat
Angered by SCANA's new policy prohibiting employees from displaying Confederate flag bumper stickers in company parking lots, South Carolina's top state senator said Friday he wants to strip the company of state contracts and allow other utilities to compete with it.
Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, the Senate president pro tem, said he would propose legislation to do so - if the company does not reverse course.
"People around the state are just outraged at the audacity of those people," said McConnell, who is known for his ability to kill or pass laws.
If SCANA and its subsidiary S.C. Electric & Gas lose millions or even go out of business because of his bill, McConnell said, "That's their choice."
SCANA, the state's only Fortune 500 company, with $3.4 billion in revenues, is one of the state's largest employers. It has about 2,200 workers in the Columbia area. It owns the electric utility SCE&G, which provides power to much of the state.
SCANA declined to comment.
McConnell said he also resents SCANA's banning its employees from driving company vehicles into the parking lots of Maurice Bessinger's barbecue restaurants.
"They (SCANA) have a monopoly that is guaranteed, and then they turn around and try to hurt a restaurant's business!" said McConnell, who runs a Confederate memorabilia store.
SCANA said employees could patronize Bessinger's stores if they parked company cars off-site.
Bessinger is controversial because he has distributed pamphlets at his stores saying slavery was God's will and that many blacks liked being slaves. Such views were prevalent in South Carolina before the Civil War and were used by white leaders as justification to keep slavery.
"If the Bible teaches that there is biblical slavery, then one must accept that or be against God," Bessinger said in a 2000 interview with The State.
Bessinger's views on slavery - as well as his prominent display of the Confederate flag - have prompted major national food stores to stop carrying his barbecue sauce.
McConnell said he doesn't agree with Bessinger's views on slavery, but said Bessinger has a right to hold unpopular opinions.
As for the flag, McConnell and other Southern heritage supporters say it stands for the sacrifices of Confederate soldiers in battle.
McConnell sent SCANA chief executive officer William Timmerman a letter Thursday saying, "Apparently, the lack of competition has intoxicated your corporation into a sea of arrogance. .‘.‘. "
McConnell said he has directed lawyers to draw up a bill that would:
• Deny state contracts to any company that "tramples on free speech" or discriminates against firms like Bessinger's;
• Deprive SCANA of the noncompetitive, monopoly status it has and open its territories to other utilities.
McConnell introduced a similar bill last session. It did not pass.
A company spokesperson had no comment. She said Timmerman was out of town and had not received McConnell's letter.
In his letter, McConnell said, "Our ancestors were willing to give their lives to defend freedom. The legislators should be willing to give its attention to that same struggle."
McConnell's use of the word "freedom" in describing Confederate soldiers was criticized by Columbia NAACP president Lonnie Randolph.
"They fought for the freedom of whites - not for blacks," said Randolph, adding that South Carolina kept 400,000 blacks in slavery during the Civil War.
Sen. Jake Knotts, R-Lexington, who is white and supports the Confederate flag, said he hasn't seen McConnell's specific proposal but looked forward to backing it.
Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, who is black and whose ancestors were S.C. slaves, said, "The Civil War continues. There's no end to it."
Jackson said McConnell's proposal would allow government to meddle in a private business and may seriously hurt SCANA.
Noting that he took no action when Bessinger distributed slavery tracts, Jackson said, "I didn't introduce a bill designed to put Maurice Bessinger out of business. .‘.‘. In this time of laying off state employees, we ought to be talking about whether we can get the Legislature to agree on a cigarette tax."
Gov. Jim Hodges, who helped engineer a controversial compromise that moved the Confederate flag from the State House dome to the State House lawn, said McConnell's bill was inappropriate.
"I don't think we should spend our time and energy telling private businesses how to do their jobs," Hodges said.
Bessinger faxed a statement to The State. It said in part, "If the people of South Carolina cannot have freedom to honor one's heritage, then we are not free but are in fact slaves of these powerful groups and their lackeys in the government."
In recent days, the story has been the most-talked-about topic in South Carolina.
White callers have flooded conservative radio talk shows with pro-Confederate flag and anti-SCANA sentiments. At WIS-TV, more than 200 people e-mailed reactions to the station's Question of the Day - most against SCANA.
McConnell said the company's stand is now a major state issue. "This is not going to go away. This is like bubble gum on a boot."
Jackson said the black community is buzzing with talk about the issue.
"My mother said, 'Good for SCANA. Now I don't feel so bad about paying these high light bills.'"
These left-wing communist sympathizers are total idiots, also. They would give up liberty and the Constitution in a heart beat PC.
Hey, this isn't all they said. It was reported in "Die Schtate", Scana employees were not allowed to service any of Maurice's restaurants. This is absolutely outrageous. I'm looking for a Battle flag picket to join. Then Scana will see more of the Confederate flag than they have in their 'hole' life.
White persons consituted 67.2% of the 2000 population.
Black or African American persons constituted 29.5% of the 2000 population.
"I don't think we should spend our time and energy telling private businesses how to do their jobs," Hodges said.
Oh, but Gov Hodges. You feel it's appropriate to stick your nose into a position that at the time the majority of your constituency wanted the Flag left where it was and push for a compromise to get it removed? And now, you're no better than you were 3 years ago. The NAALCP is STILL boycotting and what's next? I don't say this often about people but Jim Hodges is a stupid SOB and should keep his mouth shut for the rest of his term.
Sen McConnell cheers for you for standing up for what's right, what's decent, and for Southern heritage
This is a "live" editorial & any suggestions from my freeper pals for improving it is much appreciated!
WHO CARES???
Jackson said, "...In this time of laying off state employees, we ought to be talking about whether we can get the Legislature to agree on a cigarette tax."
Ok, Mr. Jackson, then SHUT UP about moving the Confederate Soldier's Monument off the statehouse grounds. Concentrate, instead, on other means to extort money from working people to fund your socialist agenda.
Gov. Jim Hodges, ...said McConnell's bill was inappropriate. "I don't think we should spend our time and energy telling private businesses how to do their jobs," Hodges said.
Hairlip Hodges is deluded. His primary function is to protect the freedom of the people of South Carolina, including Mr. Bessinger and the good people that work for SCANA. He had no problem crawling in bed with "private businesses" that supported the removal of the flag from the statehouse dome. Suddenly he finds this conduct reprehensible. What a joke. I hope he's enjoying his last few months in office.
IMO, anyone holding SCANA stock and wanting to dump it in a hurry should hold on to ONE share. This will at least get you into meetings and a voice as an investor that you would not otherwise have.
I teach college level 'real' American History and I am surpirsed how much spin has been put on top of the Civil War. I am more surprised by how may 'educated' people believe the revisions to history that began to be taught by the North within one generation of Lee's surrender.
Like it or not, the end of slavery in this nation was an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of the Civil War.
Until January 1863 slavery was LEGAL on both sides of every battlefield - supported by the Dred Scott decision by the United States Supreme Court. (I elaborate on this in my classroom, but for the sake of space will save a more detailed post for later....)
Anyway, as far as those who insist on defaming our Southern patriots who fought against the aggression of the Federal Government - I suggest they re-read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution - both provide the right of the people and the States to abolish or establish the type of Government they choose to live with. Has everyone forgotten the 10th Amendment?
Anything not specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution belonged to the states and the people - this would included the right to EXIT the Union for the simple reason that there was no prohibition against it. Read some of the primary documents from early 1860 - 1861 and opinions on the constitutionality of forcing states to remain with the Federal Government actually ended up supporting the states right to leave.
In truth, there was actually a quite orderly and civil transfer of governmental functions, property etc. between the repective states and the federal government while James Buchanan was president .
It was not until Lincoln took over the Oval Office and chose to raise federal troops to force the states back into the union fold - against the consent of the 'governed' peoples of those states through their elected state assemblies - that the Civil War began.
Abraham Lincoln, in fact, began the Civil War. North Carolina and Virginia both voted to leave the Union only after Lincoln revealed his intentions to force the people of the South back into the Union.
Fort Sumter was a preemtive strike - taken after Lincoln took action to use the Fort as a base of aggression against the peaceful South - much like what Pres. Bush is planning for Iraq.
My past, present and future is about our rights under God, the right's of individual self government ....by the people and our U.S. Constitution and it's preservation for my children's children as it was intended by the fouding fathers.
Southern and Proud! - Katherine Jenerette
P.S. - I hate to think that in the future, long after I am gone, that some revisionist historians could say that the American soldiers who fought in Desert Storm fought to preserve the rights of women to have abortions; because that is what they have done to the thousands of honorable Southerners who fought for the Constitution as it was framed and adopted by the founding fathers. For extra credit - read the Constitution of the CSA....
P.S.S. - Oh, before I forget....what if a SCANA employee has a SC Sons of Confederate Veterans license Plate
which is legal and available from the DMV. They can't park anywhere....hmmm...
Check out the pretty patriotic plate yourself:
http://www.scdps.org/dmv/specialty.html
�
Anything not specifically stated in the U.S. Constitution belonged to the states and the people - this would included the right to EXIT the Union for the simple reason that there was no prohibition against it.
What the 10th Amendment actually says is that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The ability to create a new state or authorize a change in the status of an existing one are powers reserved to the United States. The power to act unilaterally in a manner where the interests of other states are involved are powers denied the states.
In truth, there was actually a quite orderly and civil transfer of governmental functions, property etc. between the repective states and the federal government while James Buchanan was president .
In fact there was no orderly transition, only southern states seizing federal property.
It was not until Lincoln took over the Oval Office and chose to raise federal troops to force the states back into the union fold - against the consent of the 'governed' peoples of those states through their elected state assemblies - that the Civil War began.
Lincoln issued a call for troops a few days after the south had fired on Sumter, and several weeks after the confederate congress had authorized the raising of an army of 100,000 men for a two year enlistment.
Fort Sumter was a preemtive strike - taken after Lincoln took action to use the Fort as a base of aggression against the peaceful South - much like what Pres. Bush is planning for Iraq.
Lincoln's only act of agression was trying to resupply a fort that belonged to the federal government in the first place.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I have one of those beautiful tags but my number is not so low.
Where and with whom, if you know, does that #2 tag reside? (grin)
Here is something recent; I am not sure if Browne is a recent convert but he has certainly got it right!
.
.
Who Cares about the Civil War? by Harry Browne July 31, 2002 I believe an understanding of the Civil War has great relevance to the future of liberty in America. It may be the most misunderstood of all American wars. And so much of what we lament today — government intrusions on civil liberties, unlimited taxation, corporate welfare, disregarding of the Constitution, funny money — date back to programs started during the Civil War. Although slavery was an ever-present political issue in the early 1800s, it wasn't the immediate cause of the war. In fact, Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address vowed that he wouldn't interfere with slavery. He also said the North wouldn't invade the South unless necessary to collect taxes. Before the war, the main concern about slavery was whether new states and territories would come into the Union as free states or slave states. This affected the balance of power in Congress, and both Northerners and Southerners worried that the other region might dominate Congress. Taxes Why then was the Civil War fought? As with most wars, there's no single answer. But the predominant cause was taxation. Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs (federal taxes on foreign imports), using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects. The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed boondoggles were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare. Certainly the Southerners were concerned about the future of slavery. But there was no threat in 1861 that the federal government would be able to outlaw it. Secession When Lincoln was elected, South Carolina saw a grim future ahead and seceded. Other Southern states quickly followed suit. Lincoln asserted that no state had a right to secede from the Union — even though several geographical regions had considered secession before. Few people thought the Union couldn't survive if some states decided to leave. Upon seceding, the Confederates took over all federal forts and other facilities in the South, with no opposition from Lincoln. The last remaining federal facilities were Fort Pickens in Florida and Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln at first promised to let the South have Fort Sumter, but then tried to reinforce it. The South moved to confiscate it — shelling the Fort for many hours. (No one was killed or even seriously injured.) Why was Fort Sumter important? Because it was a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs. Although there had been only scattered Northern opposition to the secessions, the shelling of Fort Sumter (like the bombing of Pearl Harbor almost a century later) incited many Northerners to call for war against the South. The South's seizure of Fort Sumter caused many Northerners to notice that the South would no longer be subsidizing Northern manufacturing. As the war began, the sole issue was restoration of the Union — not ending slavery. Only in 1863 did the Emancipation Proclamation go into effect, and it didn't actually free a single slave — just like so many laws today that don't perform the purpose for which they were promoted. . The Damage The Lincoln Presidency imposed a police state upon America — North and South. He shut down newspapers that disagreed with him, suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned civilians without trials, and went to war — all without Congressional authority. Just as future Presidents would do, he used the war as an excuse to increase government dramatically. He rewarded his political friends with pork-barrel projects, flooded the country with paper money, established a national banking system to finance a large federal debt, and imposed the first income tax. He also destroyed the balance between the executive and Congressional branches, and between the federal government and the states. He set in motion many precedents we suffer from today. That's why it's important to understand the Civil War for what it was, not what the mythmakers want it to be. Alternatives Was slavery an evil? Of course. Is it a blessing that it ended? Of course. Was it necessary for 140,414 people to die in order to end slavery? Definitely not. The U.S. was the only western country that ended slavery through violence — outside of Haiti (where it ended through a slave revolt). During the 19th century dozens of nations ended slavery peaceably. What Was Lincoln? Was Lincoln opposed to slavery? Yes, he became an abolitionist in the mid-1850s, although he said he didn't know how slavery could be ended. Lincoln's fans have portrayed him as the Great Emancipator, Honest Abe, who with great courage and single-minded determination fought a Civil War to free the slaves. Many of his detractors have tried to show that he was actually a racist. I think it's important to understand that, more than anything else, he was a politician. Throughout his career he shaded the truth for political advantage, he played both sides against the middle, he lied about his opponents, and he used government force to get what he wanted. Like so many politicians, he continually uttered platitudes about liberty while doing everything in his power to curtail it. His idolaters applaud him for being a dictatorial politician, saying this was precisely what America needed in 1861. No historian believes he acted within the Constitution. Importance of Studying the Civil War I believe the study of the origins and conduct of the Civil War is an important part of a libertarian education. Although the Progressive era, the New Deal, and the Great Society each caused government growth to accelerate, only the Civil War caused a complete break with the past. It transformed a federation of states into a national government. It introduced the elements of big government that later movements would build on. And it set in motion the disregard for the Constitution that's taken for granted today. You'll also find parallels between the Civil War and today's War on Terrorism. Lincoln and the Civil War are fascinating subjects. I've read numerous books about them, and I can highly recommend two recent books that provide an excellent introduction. Jeffrey Hummel's book "Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" (published in 1996) and Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" (2002) are both well-documented and very well-written. You'll find reading either of them (or both) to be an adventure, rather than a task. Hummel's book is longer, more complete, and perhaps more balanced. DiLorenzo's is faster reading. Both are well worth their inexpensive prices. We're fortunate that Laissez Faire Books carries an enormous assortment of pro-liberty titles, and makes it easy to order books online. (You may want to bookmark the site for easy reference.) Hummel's book is only $14.95, and DiLorenzo's book is only $17.50. Happy reading!
| Home | Radio Show | Article Index | Speaker | Investment Advice | Books |
|
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.