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.
|
|
Wow, I'm so impressed. Dana thinks a 5-4 decision is unanimous. ROTFLMAO!
According to a secondary source I have, the Court ruled unanimously that secession was not allowed, but split 5-4 on which branch of government had the authority to put down the rebellion, Congress or the Executive.
Walt
It really doesn't matter what some "secondary" source says, what matters is the decisions involved.
Secondary sources have their place.
What matters most is that 5 is greater than 4.
Walt
There was no declaration of war.
The majority opinion states that the whole executive power belongs to the president. You don't like the outcome -- a stronger and more free United States, so you carp.
Walt
What matters is refuting your lies about the case, and other issues.
You should try and do that then.
Walt
The judicial power of the United States lies in the Supreme Court. That's in the Constitution.
The rebels (and there weren't nine million of them) couldn't bring the revolutionary power to overthrow the lawful government.
Walt
You indicated there was a "declaration of war" by the United States.
Was that a lie, or just ignorance, or some third alternative?
Walt
Huh? Who said it didn't? Obfuscation? Congress declares war, and it did declare war ex post facto
Cite a Congressional declaration of war on the rebels. Where can we see that? What was the wording?
The whole Union position was based on the idea that no state could get out of the Union on its own. Neither the Constitution nor the laws have been modified in any way since the ACW to exclude state secession. There was no legal right to secession before the ACW, and there is not one now.
Walt
I don't hate southern people. I am a southerner myself. I just don't have a high tolerance for seeing the historical record perverted. Apparently, you do.
Walt
More free? In your dreams!
Just casually glancing around, I don't see anyone up on an auction block.
Walt
That is not a declaration of war. The Union position clearly was that no unilateral state secession was possible under U.S. law. A declaration of war would have given the rebels a legitimacy they never commanded.
The Prize Cases majority ruling even refers to the "so-called Confederate states."
You tried to mislead people, but you got caught.
Walt
Show me.
In the meantime, check this out.
I got this off the NG Nashville.general:
"...in 1842 a group of prominent southern slaveholding members of the House of Representatives crafted the following statement to condemn the idea that the Union was not permanent:
"Whereas, the Federal Constitution is a permanent form of Government and of perpetual obligation... and the dissolution of the Union necessarily implies the destruction of that instrument, the overthrow of the American Republic, and the extinction of our national existance... [To advocate breaking up the Union is thus] a high breach of privilege, a contempt offered to this House, ... and involves necessarily, in its execution and its consequences, the destruction of our country and the crime of high treason." [Source: Congressional Globe, Jan. 1842, pp. 169-170.]
How about that?
Walt
Wattle, when the states seceded (not prohibited BTW)...
I am afraid it is prohibited.
According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:
"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
The Supreme Court actually refers to the Militia Act in the Prize Cases ruling. Guess that slipped past you when you were reading it.
Walt
So what? The issue for the great bulk of northerners was Union, not slavery.
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.