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.
|
|
If you shoot up my dog house to begin the whole thing then don't complain if I come after you, regardless of whether you are on your property or mine.
The south initiated hostilities by firing on Sumter. They started the war so they had nothing to complain about when the war came home to them.
Considering that the Wlat Brigade consists of a mere 4 regular members, that simply does not seem to be the case.
Your intellectual dishonesty
The source of that accusation and its lack of substantiation render it about as credible as a Jesse Jackson sermon on adultery. In fact, the same could be said of many things you post around here.
your hatred of President Lincoln
I hold no hatred of him per se. Disapproval, yes. Political opposition to many of his practices, yes. Hatred of the many sins he committed, yes. But I can and do respect, at minimum, his political skill and hold out a hope that, in all his immorality, some good may continue to come just as it came with the abolition of slavery.
(and I suspect of the USA)
Considering your alliance with and praise of an individual who proudly places the blame and guilt for 9/11 with George Bush Sr, I'll take that as yet another of your many statements that enjoy a credibility level comparable to that of a Jesse Jackson sermon on adultery.
and your belligerence are becoming more obvious with each passing day.
The same with the sermon could be said of that comment as well. In fact, I have witnessed you arrive on these threads, initially attempt to take part in debates, meet with much frustration upon encountering superior debators on the other side, and degrade into nothing more than the mindless name-calling that you exercise at present. You are free to accuse me of increasing belligerence, but bear in mind that I am not the one who consistently responds to another's arguments by simply shouting "SIP" along side a derogatory butchery of that opponent's chosen posting name.
Your problem with WhiskeyPapa is that he puts you (and the other neo-reb fringers like you) in your place on a regulr basis.
By what? Posting off topic cut n' pastes of Lincoln quotes along side blame-america-first smears on George Bush over 9/11? I do find it amusing that you consider him a skilled debator though. That makes you one of about four people on this forum, all of whom tend to be blinded by the same idolatry he practices on a regular basis around here.
Having failed to silence him with reasoned argument
Hey, it's not my fault that the guy is impervious to reason!
you have resorted to personal attacks on his character.
Since when is factually documenting an individual's consistent left wing activism on a thread where he is practicing more of the same an attack on his character? In fact, I defy you to show that anything that I have said about Walt's left wing Democrat political affiliations and ideology is false or irrelevant to the PC screed of the exact same ideology that he posted in this thread. You will not do so because you know, as much as anyone else here, that everything I have said is true and that Walt's hatred of all things southern and support for the politically correct censorship that his post advocates is simply par for the course in his waging of that exact same left wing liberal democrat blame-america-first political agenda he holds so dear.
Now you've been reduced to "cutting and pasting" his out of context remarks from other threads and forums
Show me that any of those quotes - any one of them at all - is out of context and does not really mean what it seems to say. If you choose to do so, it should be an easy task as I have even provided you with all the links to check them. You will find that every quote is an accurate representation of the political views of Walt. You will also find that when previously presented with that same list he declared himself to stand by every word of it. Like it or not, mac, your chosen leader is a radical leftist blame-america-firster PC-mongering liberal Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton-Gore supporting Democrat. Nothing you can do short of convincing Walt to radically shift his political views to the right. will ever change that fact.
Then, in keeping with Abe Lincoln's very own definitions, let's call it the "War of Northern Invasion and Coercion."
"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
If that dog house is (a) sitting in the middle of my front yard and (b) inhabited by a hostile dog that threatens my free use of that yard, I am completely within my rights to seek to remove it - even if you own the dog and the wood in which he resides. And when you come over with your shotgun to assist that dog in inflicting harm to me should I try to remove him and his house from my yard and, upon your arrival, procede to fire a warning shot in the sky when one of my friends drops by to visit, you have no reasonable grounds on which to expect me to continue to tolerate that dog house's presence.
The south initiated hostilities by firing on Sumter. They started the war so they had nothing to complain about when the war came home to them.
Your logic is, as usual, a non-sequitur. The principle of causality dictates that there was no necessity in the southern actions at Sumter that caused the war of invasion to happen. Invasion of the south did not have to happen as a result of Sumter. The events have no necessary connection between each other - only a relationship of proximity and indirect influence upon other direct causes. Rather, the war itself, which occurred by way the northern invasion of the south, was a necessary consequence of only the choice that made it so - the choice to invade. That choice was made by Abraham Lincoln, who thus bears ultimate responsibility for the war's occurrence. Some of his idolaters do not like him having to bear that responsibility and, seeing as he attempted to escape it himself by blaming his sinful war on God, it is not unexpected that they do so. Yet that responsibility remains with Lincoln, the direct cause of the war.
"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit. But if the government, for instance, but simply insists on holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion? Do the lovers of the Union contend that they will resist coercion or invasion of any state, understanding that any or all of these would be coercing or invading a state? If they do, then it occurs to me that the means for preservation of the Union they so greatly love, in their own estimation, is of a very thin and airy character."
President Lincoln did not consider his actions coercion or invasion. Neither do I.
Ah but the dog house was not sitting in the middle of your yard it was located on my property. And the dog in question was not hostile, had threatened nothing, but instead went out of its way to avoid bothering you. And you shot it anyway.
The principle of causality dictates that there was no necessity in the southern actions at Sumter that caused the war of invasion to happen.
There was no necessity for the southern actions. The confederacy was not in peril, the people of Charleston were not threatened. If the confederate government had allowed President Lincoln to land food at the fort, the lack of any threat to the south would not have changed. Sumter was as much a threat to the south as Guantanamo Bay is a threat to Cuba.
That choice was made by Abraham Lincoln, who thus bears ultimate responsibility for the war's occurrence.
The choice was made by Davis who decided to resort to armed conflict. The first shot of the war was fired by the confederacy. The North responded.
...which was in the middle of my yard.
And the dog in question was not hostile, had threatened nothing, but instead went out of its way to avoid bothering you.
That is simply not true. If we are to hold to this analogy, you came over and crossed into my yard against my wishes for the purpose of exerting force against me in coordination with your dog and, shortly after your arrival, fired a warning shot at my friend when he was walking up the sidewalk.
Historically this occurred when Lincoln dispatched warships tasked specifically to fight their way into Fort Sumter in the inevitable event that the confederates refused to let them enter their territory - Charleston harbor. His ships were even instructed to coordinate their attacks with the fort by way of signal flag. And when the first one arrived, the Harriet Lane, it fired on the confederate civilian vessle Nashville.
There was no necessity for the southern actions.
Yes, but that is a different issue entirely. You asserted the war to have been a necessary consequence of the confederate seige of Fort Sumter. That is simply not true as no necessary causal connection exists between the event, nor has any ever been demonstrated in the entire 140 years since it happened. I point this out because, in spite of it, you continue to treat the events as if a necessary connection exists between them. Since I have shown that to be false and since you seem unable to demonstrate anything that challenges my demonstration, I ask that you abstain from asserting a necessary cause were none exists.
Sumter was as much a threat to the south as Guantanamo Bay is a threat to Cuba.
Not really. Whereas Gitmo is generally not used to inhibit the entry or exit of foreign vessles from Cuba, Sumter was intended to be used for that purpose by Lincoln.
The choice was made by Davis who decided to resort to armed conflict.
No. As I have noted previously, no necessary connection of causality exists between the result of Davis' choice with Sumter and with the invasion and blockade of the south. Therefore the choice cannot have ultimately rested with Davis. By contrast, since the invasion and blockade were the direct necessarily caused result of Lincoln's choice to do both, he bears ultimate responsibility for there bringing about a war.
The first shot of the war was fired by the confederacy.
Not true. The Harriet Lane fired on the Nashville outside of Fort Sumter upon its arrival the night before the battle. The Harriet Lane was a northern vessle, thus the North fired the first shot of the war.
Quote what you like. It does not change the definitions Lincoln gave for coercion and invasion. Sure, he may not have considered retaking the forts etc. to be either. But as you are no doubt aware, Lincoln did much more than simply try to retake the forts or collect the tariffs. He raised an army and invaded, then used that invading army to coerce. Look at the heart of his quote:
"Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
One could easily switch out the states and say Virginia instead of California with no change in the implications of that quote. Thus it could read:
"Would the marching of an army into Virginia, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit."
Now tell me. Did Lincoln march an army into Virginia? Yes.
Did Lincoln do so without the consent of Virginia's people? Yes.
Did Lincoln's army exert hostility against those same people? Yes.
Were the people of Virginia forced to submit to that army? Yes.
Every characteristic of Lincoln's definition is met in what he did to Virginia, thus he invaded and coerced them by his own definition.
Assuming they'll know how to read by then, of course.
And what "field" is that? Manure moving technician?
And your posts remind me of Captain Crunch cereal.
Sweet and something that causes rot.
Nonsense. It was on the edge of your yard but still on my property.
That is simply not true. If we are to hold to this analogy, you came over and crossed into my yard against my wishes for the purpose of exerting force against me in coordination with your dog and, shortly after your arrival, fired a warning shot at my friend when he was walking up the sidewalk.
Again, my dog is on my property and always has been. And I'm nowhere near your property when you fire the first shot. (We can drop this anology any time you want.)
Historically this occurred when Lincoln dispatched warships tasked specifically to fight their way into Fort Sumter in the inevitable event that the confederates refused to let them enter their territory - Charleston harbor. His ships were even instructed to coordinate their attacks with the fort by way of signal flag. And when the first one arrived, the Harriet Lane, it fired on the confederate civilian vessle Nashville.
Nonsense. In his book "Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War" David Detzer details two attacks by confederate forces prior to that. The first, of course, was the firing on the Star of the West. The second occured on April 4th. The schooner Rhoda A. Shannon was outward bound from Boston to Savannah with a load of ice when she ran into heavy weather off of Hatteras. Lost and unfamiliiar with the waters, Captain Joseph Marts sailed into Charleston harbor. He had a sailor at the masthead raise the Stars and Stripes in the hopes that it would attract a harbor pilot. When none appeared Captain Marts proceeded into the bay. At 2:30 in the afternoon the Rhoda A. Shannon was fired on by the confederate batteries on Morris Island. In spite of the fact that the confederate batteries were clearly firing on a ship flying the American flag, and in spite of the fact that they did hit her, the U.S. garrison on Sumter did not escalate the issue by firing on the confederate batteries attacking the civilian ship. Captain Marts beat a hasty retreat and left Charleston. This occured days before the Harriet Lane ever got close to Charleston and was the second time that the south fired on ships flying the American flag, and in neither case did the U.S. forces answer the fire. The south clearly fired the first shot and had tried to initiate hostilities on two occasions before their third attack directly on Sumter was answered.
Not really. Whereas Gitmo is generally not used to inhibit the entry or exit of foreign vessles from Cuba, Sumter was intended to be used for that purpose by Lincoln.
Gitmo lies across the entrance to the Cuban port of Guantanamo. I can remember being tied up to the dock at the Naval Base and watching Russian freighters sailing up the channel into Guantanamo Bay. The base could block off access to this port very easily but that has never been contemplated. Just like President Lincoln never contemplated using Sumter to close Charleston.
Not true. The Harriet Lane fired on the Nashville outside of Fort Sumter upon its arrival the night before the battle. The Harriet Lane was a northern vessle, thus the North fired the first shot of the war.
Plainly false, as I detailed above. The confederates fired the first shot on not one, but two occasions.
After Virginia had joined the forces of the rebellion. And after the confederacy had fired first at Charleston.
Wrong. Lincoln actually extended his blockade against Virginia before it officially seceded.
And after the confederacy had fired first at Charleston.
Wrong again. The union ship Harriet Lane fired the first shot several hours before any confederate pulled a trigger.
Unless you are now claiming that the north owned the entire Atlantic Ocean and all the inlets on it, Fort Sumter sat several hundred miles away from the nearest union territory. It was surrounded by the confederate state of South Carolina. Thus, holding to the analogy, your dog house is in the middle of my yard at a place that you cannot reach without travelling halfway across the facade of my house and then entering my yard.
Again, my dog is on my property and always has been.
And being a threat to my own free enjoyment of my property, which surrounds it entirely on all sides, it is my right to seek its removal. I will happily do so in peace as my first means of doing so and even offer to pay you for the dog house that is sitting in the middle of my yard, but if you refuse all sensible attempts at negotiation and continue to maintain that dog there in hostility to me, I will eventually have to remove it myself.
And I'm nowhere near your property when you fire the first shot.
Not at all, and in fact the opposite is true. You are standing in the middle of my yard a few feet away from the dog house holding the still-smoking shotgun that you just used as a warning shot in the sky to deter my friend from entering my yard with my permission. In your hand is a leash with another dog you seek to add to the dog house to act in hostility with me, and strapped to your belt is a holster containing another weapon for use in the event that you are denied access.
(We can drop this anology any time you want.)
Seeing as you picked it and it has complicated significantly against you since you first introduced it, I think I'll keep it for now.
Nonsense. In his book "Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War" David Detzer details two attacks by confederate forces prior to that. The first, of course, was the firing on the Star of the West. The second occured on April 4th. The schooner Rhoda A. Shannon was outward bound from Boston to Savannah with a load of ice when she ran into heavy weather off of Hatteras.
Neither incident occurred in the immediate proximity of the war. Thus each may be considered among the multitude of skirmishes and minor actions that occurred around the nation during the secession era. By contrast, the Lane was there specifically to take part in the military relief expedition to Sumter that instigated the bombardment in the first place.
Gitmo lies across the entrance to the Cuban port of Guantanamo. I can remember being tied up to the dock at the Naval Base and watching Russian freighters sailing up the channel into Guantanamo Bay. The base could block off access to this port very easily but that has never been contemplated. Just like President Lincoln never contemplated using Sumter to close Charleston.
To the contrary. He did contemplate using Sumter to inhibit access to Charleston by way of forcing tariff collections there and controlling access by ship. In fact his first ship to arrive on the scene, the Harriet Lane, attempted to inhibit free access by firing on a civilian ship. It would be akin to the U.S. Navy dispatching a support ship to gitmo and, upon its arrival there, using it to control access to the port when the russian freighters you speak of enter.
The Virginia legislature had voted to secede and forces led by a former governor seized the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry. Virginia had initiated hostilities, not the Federal Government.
Wrong again. The union ship Harriet Lane fired the first shot several hours before any confederate pulled a trigger.
Yet the southern forces had fired on the U.S. flag on two occasions prior to that.
Sumter sat on the nearest Union territory. It was in the harbor of a city of the United States, rebellion no withstanding, and there was no reason at all for the garrison to leave.
Neither incident occurred in the immediate proximity of the war.
Oh, please. The confederate forces fired on ships flying the flag of the United States on two occasions and that doesn't count? That arguement is weak even by your standards. The Nashville was flying no flag when the Lane stopped it. The Star of the West and the Rhoda A. Shannon were both clearly identifying themselves as U.S. ships when they were fired on by the confederate forces. The south was trying to provoke a response and in neither case did the U.S. forces take the bait. Davis didn't get his war until the third attempt.
He did contemplate using Sumter to inhibit access to Charleston by way of forcing tariff collections there and controlling access by ship.
Yet not a single ship was stopped by the forces in Sumter. They weren't borded or hindered from entering or leaving. No tariff revenue was collected. And from all that you can cook up some scheme about President Lincoln's intentions.
Thanks for the comments.
I don't see much on FR that I take issue with. I think the Bushes both to incompetent clowns. Ronald Reagan went behind our backs selling arms for hostages while publicly proclaiming --to large doses of applause -- that he would never ever do such. His staff raised money illegally and spent it illegally -- by selling US government property. What the Reagan adminstration did was worse than Watergate. But he was a nicer guy than Nixon, so he skated. Also, despite all the Reagan worship, I don't think he ever made a tough decision.
I'm saying that I have voted for democrats based more on the idea that I saw them as less undesireable personally than the Republican they faced.
I voted for John Anderson in 1980. I was for Perot until he went nuts.
Walt
South Carolina has never been out of the Union for even ten seconds.
South Carolina has ceded all rights to Fort Sumter to the feds. The feds wouldn't agree to even build the fort until title was conveyed.
You know that.
Walt
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.