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.
|
|
I dunno. Some of them are good for a laugh.
Walt
I never said the feds were behind the effort to get rid of it.
I was simply stating why some people fly the flag.
Those trying to eliminate it and those who wish to preserve it are not necessarily doing so for directly opposing reasons.
Those with idiotic beliefs built on lies should expect to be insulted.
I prefer to be polite and follow the FR posting rules, but thanks anyway for the free pass in letting me insult you.
Though Walt never did insult you that I have seen.
I guess you have not been paying attention.
Other than the culture of the Blacks what is southern culture?
Do you realize in how many ways your above statement is racist?
Moon Pies does not a culture make. mmmmm Moon Pies.
You have no clue as to how many thing have been invented in the South. Among other things, both Coke-a-Cola and Pepsi were invented in the South. Every time you take a drink out of one of these products you're taking in a little bit of the South with it. :)
Legally they still were. According to their ordinance of secession "This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted." But Virginia was not forming its own army at the time you speak. The people of Virginia were using some of their militia organizations to seize arsenals.
When they seized the arsenal at Harpers Ferry that they were still a member of the United States?
Virginia still was.
Isn't that in violation of the Constitution somewhere?
Possibly, but that does not address the issue at hand.
That when the confederate congress voted on May 7 that Virginia was a member of the United States AND the confederate states?
No, because, as best as I can tell, the May 7th decision to seat Virginia was made contingent upon their referendum vote. The same was done with Tennessee's referendum. I think that it is clear that the good people of Virginia did not agree with your interpretation of the situation in 1861.
Much to the contrary. Their secession ordinance itself spells out the date when secession will occur and the referendum upon which it is contingent:
"This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted."
They considered themselves not part of the United States and, after May 7th, a part of the confederate states referendum or no referendum.
Their secession ordinance says otherwise: "This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted."
Then the general ineptness of the confederate military was evident from the very start.
Call it whatever you like, but one can just as easily point out the mistaken navigation of that ship was itself evidence of yankee ineptness.
On what grounds?
On the grounds that South Carolina seceded.
What legal document authorized that?
South Carolina's secession ordinance.
What act of legislation voided the original agreement?
South Carolina's actions of severing their previous ties to the union that were carried out under their secession ordinance. When?
In his inaugural address and at several public speeches in its immediate proximity.
Now that's a peculiar statement, considering that you could care less what the Supreme Court or any court for that matter has to say when it contradicts The Lincoln. It's just another case in the long list of your glaring inconsistencies, Walt.
In the meantime, Spooner's constitutional argument on treason remains unaddressed.
Happily, if you will specify what it is about it that you need explained for you.
A strict appeal to majoritarianism results in a system where the will of the majority determines right from wrong. This creates a system where there exists, as some have described it, a "tyranny of the majority." Is that what you believe this country to have as its form of government?
You seem to be mistaken yet again, Walt, as to the author of the comments you are addressing. In answer to your question though, the Vandals did not level Rome completely to the ground. The same cannot be said of Sherman in Atlanta, or many other towns and cities across the south.
I'll have to do some searching to find them as they are obscure documents, but I do recall seeing more than one correspondence.
A brief search led me to another correspondence from one of Davis' envoys to the Vatican. He announces without any doubt in his mind that Pius had given recognition by his naming of Davis as President and his naming of the CSA. The letter reads: "It is addressed "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of ther Confederate States of America." Thus we are acknowledged, by as high an authority as this world contains, to be an independant power of the earth. I congratulate you, I congratulate the President, I congratulate his cabinet; in short, I congratulate all my true-hearted countrymen and countrywomen, upon this benign event. The hand of the Lord has been in it, and eternal glory and praise be to His holy and righteous name. The document is in the latin language, as are all documents prepared by the Pope. I can not incure the risk of its capture at sea, and, therefore, I shall retain it until I can convey it , with entire certainty, to the President."
The letter is preceded by several in which Mann informs Davis of friendly reception in Rome despite efforts by an envoy from The Lincoln to sway the Vatican against recieving them.
It does refer to him as 'president' but it does not make reference to 'Confederate States of America'
Yes it does. In fact it does so only a few spaces from where it refers to Davis as "President." The opening reads "Illustrious and Hon. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America"
nor does it refer to the conflict as anything but a Civil War. Davis's representative, Father Bannon, was not accorded diplomatic status of any kind nor were ambassadors exchanged.
According to the account of the meeting, Pius personally asked CSA envoy Ambrose Dudley Mann "You will remain here for several months?," indicating a continued reception. In a subsequent letter, Mann informed the confederate government that he had been formally recieved by the Vatican with great cordiality and attention and that Cardinal Antonelli had extended him special protection after a Lincoln representative protested his reception.
That doesn't sound like formal relations to me.
One cannot get any more formal than the address given to Davis by Pius. Beyond that, it is a matter of fact that the CSA envoys were accommodated and recieved by the Vatican at the highest levels. Such indicates their formal recognition of the confederate government.
Throughout the war the relationship between confederate representatives and the European powers was more like that between John Hinckley and Jody Foster than between sovereign nations.
That is not what the confederates who were there encountered. CSA envoy Dudley Mann wrote Davis in November 1863 with the following description of his reception in Europe:
"I may add, in this connection, that such passports as you may issue will receive the visa of the nuncio at Paris or Brussels, and that there is now nowhere that the nationality of a citizen of the Confederate States is not as much respected as that of the United States except in the dark hole of the North of Europe."
He also speaks at length of having been recieved formally by the Vatican and recieving an audience with the pope himself.
Is it possible that we are still talking of the same letter? Father Bannon used the letter in a series of posters that he had distributed in 1864 to try and keep Irish enlistments down. That could be the reason for the difference in dates. The letter in the Davis book runs:
Illustrious and Honorable Presidetn
Salutations:
We have just received with all suitable welcome the persons sent by you to place in our hands your letter, dated the 23rd of September last. Not slight was the pleasure we experienced when we learned, from those persons and the letter, with what feelings of joy and gratitude, you were animated, illustrious and honorable President, as soon as you were informed of our letters to our venerable brother, John, Archbishop of New York, and John Archbishop of New Orleans, dated the 18th of October of last year, and in which we have with all our strength exerted and exhorted those venerable brothers that in their episcopal piety and solicitude, they should endeavor, with the most ardent zeal, and in our name to bring about the end of that fatal civil war which has broken out in those countries in order that the American people may obtain peace and concord and dwell charitably together. It is particularly agreeable to us that you illustrious and honorable President, and your people, were animated with the same desires of peace and tranquillity which we have in our letters inculcated upon our venerable brothers. May it please God at the same time to make the other peoples of America and their rulers, reflecting seriously how terrible is civil war, and what calamities it engenders, listen to inspirations of a calmer spirit and adopt resolutely the part of peace. As for us, we shall not cease to offer up the most fervent prayers to God Almighty that he may pour out upon all the people of America the spirit of peace and charity, and that He will stop the great evils which afflict them. We, at the same time, beseech the God of pity to shed abroad upon you, the light of His grace, and attach you to us by a perfect friendship.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's the 3rd day of December, 1863, of our Pontificate 18.
It bears repeating that Father Bannon left Rome without obtianing any sort of official recognition as ambassador, that no ambassadors were exchanged between the U.S. and the Papal States, and no formal recognition of the Davis regime was forthcoming.
Legally all the states were, so when Virginia established its own armed forces in violation of the Constitution and seized federal property then they, too, were in rebellion regardless of whether they had had their referendum or not. So for President Lincoln to include them in the same blockade implemented to supress the rebellion was proper.
No, because, as best as I can tell, the May 7th decision to seat Virginia was made contingent upon their referendum vote. The same was done with Tennessee's referendum.
That conflicts with what I've seen. Do you have something to support that claim?
Much to the contrary. Their secession ordinance itself spells out the date when secession will occur and the referendum upon which it is contingent...
Nevertheless by their actions it is clear that the people of Virginia did not consider themselves part of the United States after April 17 and all their actions indicate this. Their view of the situation does not bear any resemblence to your interpretation.
South Carolina's secession ordinance.
You mean this one?
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
I don't see the part where Sumter is mentioned.
South Carolina's actions of severing their previous ties to the union that were carried out under their secession ordinance.
Again that is utter nonsense.
"A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people."
A lot of people agreed with Mr. Lincoln.
That is why the rebellion failed.
Walt
You say "look at Spooner" as he were any particular authority, when a fair interpretation would have to include, "but the Supreme Court indicated in 1862 that the secessionists were nothing but traitors."
But you are not interested in a fair or impartial reading of these events.
Anyone who wants to can see through your blue smoke and mirrors.
Walt
Racist? Oh, suuure. Squawking "racist" at me will not prevent me from pointing out the facts.
You're the one attacking my culture. And because of that, the shoe fits.
Jazz and the Blues are far and away the most important contributions of the south to American culture that are unique to the section.
Jazz and Blues is not a Southern thing, it is a US thing. It’s orgins can be traced from Chicago to New Orleans. There is no one real place that is can be solidly traced back to. Now Gospel music one the other hand can be trace back to the South.
Faulkner, RP Warren, Poe, Tennesse Williams are all great writers but not unique.
How about Samuel L. Clemens.
There can be no denial that the majority of southerns historically disdained high culture and for many years education.
Translation, Southerners don’t like hypocritical, snobbish, parasitical, control-freak elitists who sponge off of other people while at the same time they like to tell other people what to do.
The latter is one of the reasons the South lost the Civil War.
You do realize that Robert E. Lee was the teacher of several Union Officers and Generals, including Sherman.
Education and intelligence in the higher-ranks was not the problem; it was lack of industry resources and even then, the South killed around a 100,000 more Union soldiers than the Union killed Southern soldiers.
Ladies and Gentleman, Paul C. Jesup is a good example of how the UNEDUCATED try to claim "racism" when their mistaken views are pointed out.
Let me guess, your definition of racist is a white male from the South. And that belief in of itself is racist.
Hint to the uneducated" culture does not equal race. The shoe not only doesn't fit but you keep trying to put it on the wrong end. Since I am southern and still have most of my family living there I can tell you there is no such thing as "Southern Culture." Hatred of American heros, northern success and ideas conceived after 1800 does not make a culture.
That is heroes, not heros.
Also, Southerner don’t have the level of self-hatred that you experience everyday. And I have to tell you, you’re experiencing a mental block in that it if you admit to yourself that there is Southern Culture, then you would also have to admit that you are racist towards it.
Sorry oh musical ignoramous, Jazz was invented in New Orleans and DECADES LATER came to Chicago when Satchmo came here.
That is ignoramus, not ignoramous.
New Orleans is in Cajun country and is just as much French as it is Southern.
Gospel music is largely derived from Black music.
You're mixing up Jazz and Blue with Gospel music. Gospel music was inspire by Christianity in the South.
You cannot admit to yourself that anything has invented by white southerners.
I will concede there is little music from the north worth anything but it is from the Blacks that American music has conquered the world.
That is such a sad statement and so untrue.
Sam left the South as soon as he could and spent most of his adult life in Nevada, California and later Connecticut.
Perhaps, but Samuel L. Clemens was from the South and some his greatest books dealt with the South, therefore he counts as a Southern Writer, and you are WRONG in your statement that there were no great Southern Writers.
No the high culture of the world is often rejected by the upper crust (philistines). You will find few opera critics better than ordinary Italians. Beethoven was crude, irreverent, often nasty and disheveled. Mozart loved practical jokes and crude behavior. Classical music generally does require more brainpower than its detractors have.
You don’t realize do you how paradoxical you above statement it.
You know less than you think you do.
However, your comments perfectly illustrate the anti-intellectualism which I described earlier. With a nice helping of class warfare thrown into the mix.
Actually it is anti-hypocrisy that I support. And class warfare is Maxist trait.
Also, you and Walt are the ones who instigated this argument and therefore you have only yourselves to blame when someone, like me, calls you on it.
The Northern soldier was much better educated than his Southern counterpart just as the population of the North was much better educated than that of the South.
You definition of ‘educated’ is very inconsistent.
The Ante-Bellum culture of the South discouraged hard work (except for slaves),
You don’t even know where the term ‘redneck’ comes from.
education and modern ideas.
Have you even taken a look at pre-Civil War/War Between the States Southern architecture; it required intelligence to build those buildings.
That is why it was stuck in a reactionary economic system and why it had no industry.
There was no serious industry in the South because the Yankees would no allow it.
If all its capital was tied up in buying slaves obviously there was none left for munitions, railroads, and heavy industry which allowed the Union to prevail.
You above statement is wrong in so many ways that it is actually funny. LOL!
And where do you think Robert E. was educated? Hint: West Point, NY. Not that an isolated individual disproves my statement anyway.
He is also the only student in West Point history to NEVER receive a demerit.
The records indicate that Mann was also recieved as a Vatican envoy. Here are the documents pertaining to his appointment. I have included in parenthesis the page numbers of their locations in the "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion" volumes put out by the government. You may search them online here: http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse.monographs/ofre.html
"Reposing special trust and confidence in your prudence, integrity, and ability, I do appoint you, the said A. Dudley Mann, special envoy of the Confederate States of America to the Holy See and to deliver to its most venerable chief, Pope Pius IX, sovereign pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, a communication which I have addressed to his holiness under date of the 23d of this month." - Jefferson Davis, letter of appointment of Mann as envoy to the Vatican (bottom of page 152) A detailed account by Mann of his reception with the Pope is given by Mann on November 14th after his arrival at the Vatican and after initial diplomatic discussions with Cardinal Antonelli, the Vatican's secretary of state (see bottom of page 952, where the account starts - the letter continues for several pages after that).
The letter in question is there in his book and doesn't include the 'confederate states of america' label.
The letter I presume you are referring to appears in the "War of the Rebellion" records as well, is addressed to Davis as the "President," and states specifically the "Confederate States of America." (See top half of page 975)
Is it possible that we are still talking of the same letter?
My copy of Davis' book is currently several hundred miles away from me as I am travelling, so I cannot check what letter you know of in that book. It nevertheless appears to be the same letter, though your translation is different from the one I have. For whatever reason, your copy seems to leave out the inclusion of "Confederate States of America" in the letter's formal address immediately following the word your version does include, "President." The copy to which I am referring is found on p. 975 of the government publication of the war's records on the cornell website, so you can verify there that the CSA was specifically named. I am unsure as to Bannon's role in recieving that letter and I assume he was present with Mann at the Vatican when it was recieved. But according to the records, Mann was the one who transmitted it back to Davis. His letter of December 9th reports that diplomatic recognition had been successfully obtained and informs Judah Benjamin that he is seeking a way to securely transfer the letter from Pius back to the North American continent (see page 973).
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.