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.
|
|
You can keep shouting that till your voice goes hoarse, Walt, but it will never change the de facto reality that South Carolina seceded.
Your reasoning is circular. You are attempting to prove that Sumter was closest to itself, which is neither a matter of dispute nor concern for this argument. Try again.
Oh, please. The confederate forces fired on ships flying the flag of the United States on two occasions and that doesn't count?
Not if they weren't in the proximity of the war! They count among the pre-war skirmishing that occurred all over the place in the months prior to the war. By contrast, the incident with the Harriet Lane occurred immediately in proximity of the Fort Sumter battle and involved a ship that was there to participate in military actions involving that battle. The same cannot be said of any of the skirmishing you mentioned.
Yet not a single ship was stopped by the forces in Sumter.
But the ships he sent to reinforce Fort Sumter did try to stop one within moments of their arrival there. Try again.
They weren't borded or hindered from entering or leaving.
The Nashville was hindered from entering.
Incorrect. They voted to have a referendum on secession. That referendum had not taken effect yet when The Lincoln blockaded them.
Yet the southern forces had fired on the U.S. flag on two occasions prior to that.
...neither of which was in the proximity of the war or played a role in that war's first battle.
Nor had that referendum taken effect when the Virginia forces siezed the federal facilities at Harpers Ferry. That didn't stop them from taking the first hostile act against the federal government and making their intentions known.
...neither of which was in the proximity of the war or played a role in that war's first battle.
Both were within sight of Sumter and were the actions were committed by confederate batteries that later fired on Sumter itself. They were in all respects the first shots of the war.
I agree wholeheartedly. I have yet to see anyone cut and paste out of context useless information from a 'moderated' web group any better.
Why don't you ask him yourself? Among the other forms he has been known to sign with are "Walt," "Walt Walt," and "Walt Wlat."
They were both attempts by the confederate government to initiate hostilities. The Star of the West was fired on to keep it from landing supplies at Sumter. The Rhoda A. Shannon was fired on because the confederates mistakenly thought it was there to land supplies. Both involved the southern attempt to take posession of Sumter. They were the first and second hostile acts of the war.
The Nashville was hindered from entering.
The Nashville was allowed to proceed on its way to Charleston. It did enter Charleston Harbor, delayed a day by the sothern shelling of the fort. The Rhoda Shannon and the Star of the West were both shelled until they turned around and left the harbor, with the Shannon being struck by a shell. If hindering access to Charleston was an act of war then the south committed two acts of war before it fired directly on Sumter.
Pro-secession forces were doing similar stuff in the other border states at the time yet they were not blockaded, nor does their occurrence mean secession to have taken place. Thus the fact remains that The Lincoln declared war on Virginia before it seceded.
Both were within sight of Sumter
...but not within proximity of the battle. Try again.
Who are you going to trust? A cut and paste axeman, or a guy who researches source docs and publishes original material. I know who my money's on.
Secession occurred de facto for four years. Obedience was then coerced by an invading army from the north. But that does not change the fact that secession occurred de facto.
The Star of the West was fired upon on January 9, 1861. Only two states had left the union at the time, the second being Mississippi, which had seceded that same day. The Confederacy did not form its provisional government until a month later. Therefore the Star of the West incident could not have been, as you say, an attempt "by the confederate government to initiate hostilities."
Nor was the second incident with the Shannon any such attempt. Rather, it was a spur of the moment decision to repell what was mistaken to be a hostile ship that arrived in Charleston purely by accident.
The Nashville was allowed to proceed on its way to Charleston.
...but only after the yankees hindered it by firing a warning shot upon it.
If hindering access to Charleston was an act of war then the south committed two acts of war before it fired directly on Sumter.
Charleston was their harbor, therefore they had the right to control access to it. The same cannot be said of the yankee states, who were hundreds of miles away from their own borders.
There has never in the history of the USA been someone as undesirable as Komrade Klinton. The perjuring rapist traitor should have been tried, convicted and hung for his campaign cash tricks with Communist China.
Thank you for enlightening us on your political convictions.
But those actions of which you speak took place before the south initiated hostilities at Sumter. Once the confederate's hostile intent was established then there was no reason for President Lincoln to believe that Virginia would be any less hostile. He was within his power as President to establish the blockade to combat the rebellion.
...but not within proximity of the battle. Try again.
Both attacks were attempts by the confederate government to keep what they thought were supply efforts from reaching Sumter. Both were related to the confederate attempt to sieze something that didn't belong to them. The fact that the war did not start in either of those cases was due to the fact that the Union didn't want a war and held their fire. When the confederates fired directly on Sumter then there was no other choice.
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.