Posted on 04/04/2003 11:09:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Negotiators approve flag compromise
By JIM GALLOWAY
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Proposed new Georgia state flag.
Georgia's state flag would be changed immediately, with a public vote to follow, under a plan endorsed by a key House committee today.
The new flag would resemble the first national flag of the Confederacy -- three red and white bars, with a blue field in the top left corner. The state seal would be in the blue corner, and the words "In God We Trust" would be written to the right.
The bill adopted by the House Rules Committee calls for the Legislature to change the flag to the new design immediately. Then, in March 2004, a public referendum would be held to let voters decide whether they want to keep that flag.
Only if the new flag is rejected by voters would a second referendum be held, this time in July 2004, asking voters if they want to return to the Georgia flag dominated by the Confederate battle emblem, or the flag that flew before 1956. The current flag would not be on the ballot.
The Rules Committee proposal now heads to the full House for a vote next week, although the bill may be amended there and still requires Senate approval.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, who had proposed a statewide referendum on changing Georgia's flag, is endorsing the proposal.
"We believe this represents a compromise," said Rep. Glenn Richardson (R-Dallas), the governor's floor leader who sponsored Perdue's flag bill. "This will bring this to a conclusion."
The Legislature, led by former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, voted in 2001 to shrink the Confederate battle emblem on the state flag, which was added in 1956 as Georgia schools were being ordered to desegregate.
What other sectors would those be? Industrial plants? They had them where they needed them at home and, acting consistently with capitalism, traded their comparatively advantaged agricultural goods for the remainder abroad. From a capital standpoint, such an action is common sense - you produce what you are best at and will make you the most money, and what you aren't good at producing you purchase from somewhere else that is good at producing it.
I suspect that you have a job, correct? If so, you should know this. It's the same reason why you don't spend your days knitting shirts - your time is better spent at something else, namely whatever your job may be, even though you probably need shirts as well. So instead of knitting them on your own, even though you theoretically could do that, you instead go to Wal-Mart and buy them there with the money you earned at the job where you do spend your time.
then they are taking basic capitalism and making it work against them.
Nonsense. As is evidenced by the statistics of the time, the southern states were among the wealthiest in the nation. Rather than waste their time knitting shirts when they could be making money at something they were better at such as agriculture, they made their money at agriculture and went to the 19th century equivalent of Wal-Mart for the shirts. The end result? The south gets rich. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds as if capitalism was working quite nicely for them.
The slave, the serf, the peasant, the mudsills of society, will always exist to toil and perform necessary physical drudgery. Providence has so ordained it, and has so constituted society. There are the ruler and the ruled, the noble and the peasant, the slave and his master, the employé and the employer. Those who toil and moil, and those who enjoy the fruit of their labor. ... -- Jefferson Davis
Thanks for posting this. Funny how the Rockwellite Kool Aid drinkers ignore the classic "welfare" program of the 19th century -- slavery. Defending old Jeff on free trade grounds is like supporting China's bid for most favored nation status. Something -- the same thing, as a matter of fact -- gets left out of the equation. The "competitive advantage" provided by slavery dictated that Georgia and the rest of the Deep South would follow the Carolinas in adopting a slave, rather than a free labor, economy. The competitive advantage enjoyed by Southern cotton over that of other countries or the woolens and linens of the North was inseparable from slave labor. It would take a heart -- or head -- of stone to get more outraged at wool producers' search for protection than cotton producers' exploitation of uncompensated and unfree labor.
And how do you think the "cotton producers' exploitation of uncompensated and unfree labor" compared with the exploitation of "free labour" by the mine owners of West Virgina and Pennsylvania?
By the way, your signature quote was singularly appropriate to the three addressees of your post.
Did you notice that when you mouse your cursor over a poster's name, his registration number no longer appears? Now, you just see the same screen-name repeated. So, in order to find out if somebody is new or a veteran, you have to go to their profile page and look pretty hard to read the sign up date. And the profile page is now called the "about" page. Weird. I didn't even know John and Jim had all these changes going on. The "about" page looks pretty good, but frankly, I thought the cursor / registration number scan was handy for helping to instantly sniff out scumbag disruptors.
I never did that.
Because sarcasm is so hard to convey on paper, or forgetting to add a simple NOT after the word DO or any other type thing that can be misunderstood, I would ALWAYS go to the profile page, see their sign-on date, and THEN click on "Find In Forum" to read some of the other posts they have recently made.
That either confirms the disruptor flag that went up, or saves you an embarrassing mistake and scaring an earnest (and conservative) new member away forever.
I agree with your sentiments completely, but I think I've been around too long to jump the gun like that. And I have never used an "abuse" button.
I was just trying to say that whenever I read a "suspect" post, I mouse the name just to see if this is a brand new poster. If it is, then maybe I keep my eyes peeled, and maybe after a few more "suspect" posts I take that poster to task, politely (at first).
But man, I sure never want to be accused of being some kind of post cop.
I just liked the instant number scan feature.
No big deal, though.
Regards,
LH
Yeah....I meant that more as in the regal, all encompassing, plural everyman YOU, not the Lancey Howard YOU. :-)
More as a primer for someone reading the thread who has a few months under his belt and now thinks he can smoke out a disruptor.
Ha! I just noticed that myself! And he couldn't have picked any better three than Wlat, mac, and Non-Seq.
This of course was at odds with Taney's ruling in Merryman. By his lights only Congress could suspend the Writ. The power to do so could not be delegated to the president or any military officer. No wonder President Lincoln ignored it. Taney was a sympathiser with the rebels. But none of these neo-reb cretins will condemn Davis the way they do Lincoln. They are racists. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Criticizing President Lincoln is just the cover they use. When whatshisname compares the lot of free workers to slaves you can see the real mindset.
Walt
Not exactly, since the suspension of habeas corpus was rammed through the confederate congress by the Davis regime. The same piece of legislation created the habeas corpus commissioners who performed the same job as military courts did in the North. But the habeas corpus commissioners down south did their work without the need for a trial or with the oversight of a Supreme Court. And, of course, those that they jailed had no avenue of appeal. They just sat in jail and rotted, many for the sole crime of being a Union man. But that's perfectly OK with GOP and the Peeshwank.
Because in Georgia, a black flag means you are being penalized and must come into the pit area.
Walt
Who do you suppose the they is that GOTcrap is referring to in his 301? 5 percent of the white southern population? He's not talking about the average southerner, and he's certainly not referring to the 4,000,000 bound to labor in slavery.
The end result? The south gets rich.
Now we're starting to see one of the real motivations for secession. When you examine the ranks of the southern planting class and compare it to their political class, you'll find a small group of rich plantation owners holding the levers of power and wealth.
Who was more threatened by the end of slavery, the many upcountry dirt farmers who didn't own slaves, or a few rich low country cotton growers who relied entirely on slave labor?
What kind of sick twisted mind would attempt to equate slavery with captialism?
See what reading Lew CRockwell does to you? Moron.
From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own. -Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations)
The per capita income in the south was definitely higher than in the North, but it was skewed by the planters. Jefferson Davis, for example, averaged between $35,000 and $40,000 per year from Briarfield alone and his was far from being one of the largest operations. At his peak he owned about 120 slaves.
What kind of sick twisted mind would attempt to reduce an entire economy to a labor attribute? Oh yeah. I almost forgot. That's a favorite game of the marxists.
You truly are showing signs of leftism. Tell me, mac. Do you think there is something wrong with desiring to get rich? Do you think there is something wrong with making money and being able to keep that money? If so, it would seem that you are on the wrong forum. If not, then why all this whining of late about how the southerners had fiscal interests in seceding?
First, this is ostensibly quoted from a book written 30 years after the alleged speech.
Second, there is no historical evidence that I know of that suggests that Jefferson Davis showed any enthusiasm for secession as early as 1856.
Third, I have searched on "mudsill" and on "John Aughey" and have not been able to find this quote. Can you provide the URL (as is standard practice) of your source?
You know very well that that allegation about Davis is a canard. It was Lincoln, not Davis, who out of cowardice disguised himself as a woman.
When did Lincoln wear women's clothing?
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.