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.
|
|
Ah, but Virginia did no such thing. Individuals in Virginia did. Virginia itself, under its state government, did not formally secede from the union until the May 23rd referendum.
So for President Lincoln to include them in the same blockade implemented to supress the rebellion was proper.
Regardless of whether you think it is proper or not, that is not the issue. The issue is his extension of the blockade to Virginia at a time prior to Virginia's secession from the union. He did that and, in doing so, committed an act of war against the state of Virginia.
That conflicts with what I've seen. Do you have something to support that claim?
A brief search of a couple secession timelines was all that time permitted me to seek on this. Each had an asterisk next to the states Virginia and Tennessee, referencing that the action was contingent upon their respective referendums. I suppose this is a fairly obscure detail to verify, but if you know of a source that does that or of information that contradicts what I have found after a limited search, please post it.
Nevertheless by their actions
You seem to be encountering difficulty on distinguishing what constitutes "their," as in the state of Virginia. As a point of clarification, I ask your answer to the following question: If a band of militiamen within Virginia and acting with the support of some Virginians seizes an arsenal, does that mean that the state of Virginia itself seized that arsenal for itself? What about if the state of Virginia secedes - is that the same thing? It seems to me that the two are similar and related events, but nevertheless distinct from each other. Yet you are using them interchangeably.
Since this is obviously creating a point of unclarity, it seems that we should decide upon standards by which to determine Virginia's secession. The most obvious and easily established standard, as I have pointed out, is that of law, and by law Virginia's secession occurred on the date prescribed in their secession ordinance, May 23rd. 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.
Sure you do, though you may not recognize it yet. Pay close attention to what the ordinance says. It says that all previous associations of union under the "United States of America" have become, by way of the ordinance, "hereby dissolved." The agreement to build Fort Sumter was conducted as part of their previous association with the union. Thus, as an agreement, it was dissolved with all ties by the act of secession.
It's not a matter of authority, Walt. Though you seem to have great affection for them, Walt, appeals to authority are among the weakest types of argument. With the passage I posted from Spooner, it is a matter of soundness in a legal argument. Spooner put forth a sound and convincing legal argument. To date, you have not made any effort to evaluate that argument or rebut it. Barring any decision on your part to alter that strategy, I have no other choice but to identify your continued silence and evasion as an abandoment of the field.
Absolute balderdash. THe siezure of Harpers Ferry, the creation of an Army and appointment of commanders was done by order of the governor of Virginia.
The issue is his extension of the blockade to Virginia at a time prior to Virginia's secession from the union. He did that and, in doing so, committed an act of war against the state of Virginia.
Virginia had committed acts against the government prior to that and was in rebellion since the day after the legislature voted secession. Lincoln's acts were proper.
I suppose this is a fairly obscure detail to verify, but if you know of a source that does that or of information that contradicts what I have found after a limited search, please post it.
My source was a timeline in 'Battles & Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. 1" page 4. They notes a difference between Tennessee and Virginia, saying that Tennessee entered into military league with the confederacy on May 7 and was admitted to the confederacy as a state on May 17th. This, BTW, is a second case where the state was admitted before the referendum since Tennessee didn't vote until June 8. In any case, there is no qualifier with Virginia, stating that the state was admitted as a state on May 7th, well before the referendum. Again, Virginia did not agree with your interpretation of the matter. They considered themselves out of the Union as of April 17th.
As a point of clarification, I ask your answer to the following question: If a band of militiamen within Virginia and acting with the support of some Virginians seizes an arsenal, does that mean that the state of Virginia itself seized that arsenal for itself?
It does if the men were militia acting under authority granted by the governor of the state and in accordance with his orders. And according to the account of the action written by a participant, John D. Imboden, that is what happened. The action at Sumter was not spontaneous, it was ordered. Again, my reference is "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol.1", Imboden's account is entitled 'Jackson at Harpers Ferry in 1861'.
It says that all previous associations of union under the "United States of America" have become, by way of the ordinance, "hereby dissolved." The agreement to build Fort Sumter was conducted as part of their previous association with the union. Thus, as an agreement, it was dissolved with all ties by the act of secession.
It doesn't say that all agreements made were automatically dissolved. And it doesn't say that prior agreements were voided. When South Carolina gave the United States the land it gave it free and clear, no restrictions other than the right to serve civil papers. The secession document doesn't reverse that since the land was no longer South Carolina's.
Coming back to Guantanamo Bay for a moment, when Castro became the head of Cuba he too cancelled all treaties and agreements with the United States concerning the base at Gitmo and demanded the United States turn it over. We refused and have been there ever since. But had he shelled it into submission then you would believe that he was acting within his powers and we would be in the wrong?
Lee returned to West Point as Commendant in 1853. Sherman graduated with the class of 1840. While there is no doubt that some of the students Lee taught became generals Sherman wasn't one of them.
Why did you quote Spooner?
Walt
The fly in the buttermilk for the whole neo-reb rant is that its premises were clearly rejected by a large majority of Americans in the 1860's.
Walt
"And this issue embraces more than the fact of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can or cannot, maintain its territorial integtrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of neccessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?"
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
I don't think it's me so much that you take issue with, I think its the actual record you find so distasteful.
Walt
No comments on this?
Walt
And I was just commenting on what the History Channel stated, please take it up with them.
You are responsible for what you post.
Walt
he IS a scalawag,i.e. the lowest form of life.
free dixie NOW,sw
the S&Bs looks NOTHING like the St Andrews Cross on the battleflag. you anti-flag folks as a group know NOTHING, not even the battleflag's proper name. PITY.
free dixie,sw
for a free dixie REPUBLIC,sw
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.