Posted on 03/07/2003 9:35:10 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
|
The state's reputation, its economy and race relations hang in the balance of Perdue's decision on the flag. This square of fabric will determine whether Georgia is seen as a leader of the New South or a captive to the worst of the Old Dixie.
The flag is Perdue's moment in history, and he ought to think about the generations of schoolchildren who will read about how he responded. If he wants to be remembered as a courageous leader, he must make sure that the Confederate battle symbol never flies over the state Capitol again.
He has that opportunity now with the GOP proposal to limit the flag referendum to a simple yes-or-no vote on a state flag resembling the one that flew before 1956. Outlined by Perdue's own floor leader Glenn Richardson on Thursday, that plan is far less inflammatory than Perdue's own perilous proposal.
Yet, there was a Perdue spokeswoman on Friday demonstrating that Perdue doesn't recognize a life preserver when one hits him on the head. "The governor," said Erin O'Brien, "is standing by his plan to put the 1956 flag on the ballot."
Dividing Georgia was the understood intent of the Legislature when it slapped the Rebel battle emblem on the Georgia flag in 1956. The vote represented an angry backlash to federally mandated desegregation. With their decree, lawmakers embraced the Confederate battle emblem as a symbol of support for segregation and white racial superiority.
At the opening of that racially charged session, Gov. Marvin Griffin announced, "All attempts to mix the races, whether they be in the classrooms, on the playgrounds, in public conveyances, in any other area of close contact, imperil the mores of the South."
The argument that the battle insignia was hoisted to commemorate Southern heritage, rather than segregation, is thoroughly discredited when you look at what else came out of the all-white Legislature in 1956. Its members passed laws making it a felony to teach at an integrated school, and state parks and bus stations became segregated for intrastate passengers. Police officers who refused to enforce segregation laws could lose all their retirement benefits.
As Zell Miller said, "They were prepared to eliminate our public schools and even prohibit our college football teams from competing in bowl games -- in order to maintain segregated schools, segregated public transportation, segregated drinking fountains and segregated recreational facilities."
All of those remnants of Georgia's segregationist past are gone, including the flag. Does Perdue want to be in the history books as the governor who brought back the emblem of slavery and segregation?
Perdue defeated Roy Barnes in part because he tapped into the resentment of rural whites who felt left behind by Georgia's march into the 21st century. He promised disaffected Georgians a vote on the state flag, and they intend to hold him to that misbegotten vow.
The diehard "flaggers" care more about the flag that flies over their children's school than the quality of education occurring inside. They will never be satisfied unless the Confederate battle emblem reigns once more.
An example is the Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter in Mableton, which embarrassed itself and its cause with its infantile and insulting treatment of state Rep. Alisha Thomas (D-Austell). When Thomas, an African-American freshman legislator, attended the Feb. 24 meeting, the members pledged allegiance to the 1956 Georgia flag, saluted Confederate battle flags and hooted and hollered to a member's rendition of "Dixie."
Thomas endured the Old South hootenanny and then stood up to explain that ". . . the symbol that you love is a symbol that for African-Americans is hateful and represents a dark past for our people." She left only after the chapter commander launched into an attack of the NAACP, for which Thomas had worked as a college student.
Clearly, these are not folks open to dialogue or compromise, and Perdue should give up any illusions of placating them. Instead, he should concentrate on the majority of Georgians, reasonable voters who don't want to revive the Confederacy but only want a say-so in the flag that flies over Georgia.
As the state's first Republican governor since Reconstruction, Perdue has already earned a mention in the history books. Surely he doesn't want those texts to associate him with a divisive and racially charged flag flap that set the state back decades.
|
|
The Confederate flag, while emphasizing a link with the past, has also really come to symbolize a more general opposition to federal, bureaucratic intrusion into states' rights. It has become something of a "catch-all" or rallying point for popular disgruntlement with big, federal government.
Many of those who fly the flag are making nothing more than this very point.
No it can't.
How you managed to construe my accurate observation that the ONLY topic on this board which interests you is criticizing the Confederacy for slavery which ended over 100 years ago, and that you have zero interest in stopping current slavery, into "suppression of free exchange of ideas" is a complete mystery to me - the illogic is breathtaking.
It is completely incomprehensible to me why someone would pretend to care about past slavery when they have no interest in current slavery. Obviously slavery per se has no interest for you, only criticizing the Confederacy. But if you don't actually care about slavery, why are you bothering?
Most descendants of Union soldiers don't waste time hating the Confederacy. You do hate it, and the only reason I can see is that you are not the descendant of Union soldiers - you are the descendant of Confederate ones, and you are trying to expiate the guilt you feel at that.
Unless you are asserting that Abe Lincoln's government had control over the political happenings of the southern states from 1861 until his army conquered them, it existed well beyond the minds of those who seceded. Secession was de facto for four years. No ammount of semantical bullsh*t artistry will ever get you around that.
Name a southerner I have insulted.
Walt
I seem to recall a statement by you a while back indicating differently. Anybody got that old Walt quote from a few years back where he first admitted to voting for Clinton and other 'rats?
Your analogy is fraudulent and emotionally loaded. Terrorists in afghanistan made an unannounced, unprovoked attack on civilians in another country halfway around the world with massive casualties and destruction. The confederates carried through their long-announced intentions to lay seige to a fort within their own boundaries in direct response to military instigation by Abe Lincoln, who had sent a fleet of warships there to start a war. It resulted in minimal destruction and not a single casualty. The two situations are simply not comparable and as a rule of logic from the law of causality, the invasion of Virginia was not a necessary consequence of the firing on a fort in South Carolina.
What was the total value of South Carolina exports to Europe in 1863? 1862?
Walt
Now that's an interesting claim considering your sole piece of evidence is a single incident which you have yet to establish as anything other than a case of mistaken identity.
No they were not. European countries had received representatives of the confederacy since the beginning of the rebellion. But none of them responded with their own diplomatic representation or established embassies or treated with the south as an independent nation. Not one.
The Vatican did. In all correspondence after their reception of the confederate diplomat, the Vatican addressed Jefferson Davis by his title of "President" and the south by the name "Confederate States of America." Papal acknowledgment of a title of state's legitimacy is one of the oldest and most respected forms of recognition in the world, dating back to circa 750 AD when the pope blessed the coronation of Pepin over the Franks.
Me. :P
Yes, because they put that ordinance to a vote to be held a month later. Simply putting a referendum on the ballot is not the same thing as enacting it, Non-Seq. Practically every session my state legislature approves of constitutional amendments, which puts them on the ballot. They are not adopted though until we vote for them.
The confederate congress admitted Virginia as a state on May 7, 1861. May 7th comes before May 23rd, you cannot change that.
Regardless, in law the state did not secede until May 23rd. As for May 7th, even if we were to accept that as the date, it comes over a week AFTER The Lincoln's blockade of April 27th. There's no way around it, Non-Seq. Virginia had not seceded when it was blockaded. Niether had North Carolina. A blockade is an act of war and, by blockading two non-seceded states, Lincoln effectively declared war upon them.
The question of Virginia's joining the confederacy, regardless of the referendum, was never in doubt.
It was before The Lincoln started his little war. In fact, a major reason Virginia began to seriously consider secession was the fact that The Lincoln asked them to provide troops to invade the other southern states.
A small ship flying the American flag is immediately fired upon? If it is mistaken for a ship transporting troops to Sumter, yes.
No mistaken identity at all. The confederate forces knew it was an American vessel.
...but believed it to be a ship trying to reach Sumter. Thus it was a case of mistaken identity.
The land that Sumter sat on was deeded to the United States by the South Carolina government.
...and that agreement was rescinded with secession.
The current Cuban government does not recognize the agreement and refuses to cash the rent checks yet the U.S. remains. And while Gitmo was never used to block traffic in and out of the port neither was Sumter.
Lincoln made it known that he intended that use and his first ship to arrive on the scene, the Harriet Lane, attempted to do exactly that.
The only opposition to traffic, the only units ever to prevent a ship from entering the port, was the confederate batteries.
Considering it was their port, they had every right to do so.
Me. :P
Well, I do apologize. How have I insulted you?
Walt
I read this but I find it hard to credit. McCllellan was within six miles of Richmond when Lee took over in 1862. And in the Seven days battles, the rebels took heavier losses than the federals on all seven days, but Mac still didn't get to Richmond, obviously. Had someone who was as stubborn as Grant been in charge of the Army of the Potomac, the rebellion might have collapsed in less than a year.
As it was, some of the largest rebel cities were quickly back in Union hands. You can count Nashville, New Orleans and even Baltimore in that group.
The rebels were pretty inept, all things considered.
Your analogy to the hunt for Osama is pretty apt.
Walt
Hitler was worse in that he killed more people and he did try to commit genocide. lincoln just killed the Republic (along with being partially responsible in the deaths of 600,000 brave men). As for union soldiers being rapists and murderers, well if the shoe fits and the historical record shows them to be (which it does) that's something you need to deal with
My beliefs
My kin
My friends
My neighbors.
My culture
My religion
My ancestors
My homeland
A simple, I'm sorry, is not going to cut it.
Do one of your famous google searches for "cotton export totals south carolina 1862" or whatever. I'm sure somewhere out there somebody lists them.
Asserting that in repetition no more makes it so than flapping your arms in repetition will give you flight. As I have demonstrated, the two cases lack analogous elements in fundemental ways.
In both cases, the initial aggressor (the Confederates, al-Qaeda)
False. The CSA was not the initial aggressor at Sumter. They only fired upon the fort as a last resort after repeated attempts for peaceful turnover. They made the decision to fire because a fleet of northern warships carrying troops and munitions and under orders to fight its way into Charleston harbor was steaming in across the horizon. In fact the first member of that fleet had arrived the night before and immediately fired upon a civilian confederate vessle attempting to enter the port. By contrast, Afghanistan was completely unprovoked. Try again.
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.