ATLANTA - A new state flag without the Confederate emblem was raised over the Capitol on Thursday after a redesign aimed at laying to rest a dispute that inflamed race relations and roiled Georgia politics.
As the old flag came down, drivers slowed their cars to watch and there were scattered cheers and boos from a crowd on the Capitol lawn.
"This is a historic day in Georgia and I didn't want my daughter to miss out on it," said Lateshia Jackson, a black woman who brought her 6-year-old Nikki to the flag raising. "The process worked and these redneck holdouts can carry all the signs and boo all they want to. It's a good day for me, my daughter and some lost sanity in Georgia."
The new flag went up immediately after Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a bill to replace an unpopular design adopted in 2001.
The 2001 flag was a blue banner that contained a small Confederate emblem along the lower edge. It succeeded Georgia's 1956 flag, which was dominated by a large Confederate emblem that was added by the Legislature at the height of Southern resistance to integration.
The brand-new flag that was hoisted Thursday contains the Georgia coat of arms and the words "In God We Trust" on a blue field in the top left corner, with three red-and-white stripes to the right.
Georgia voters will pick between the new flag and the 2001 flag in a referendum next March. Few give the old flag any chance to win.
Many groups had lobbied for Perdue to veto the bill, but the governor said it would be in the state's best interest to move on.
The 2001 flag was pushed through by Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes after a similar controversy in South Carolina led to an economic boycott directed by the NAACP. But the 2001 flag was never popular, and its busy blue banner with a huge state seal was voted the nation's ugliest by a group of flag experts.
Perdue, Georgia's first Republican governor in more than a century, ousted Barnes in November after promising to let people vote to bring back the 1956 flag.
In the end, that didn't happen. After months of arguing — and a threat of an economic boycott by black groups — lawmakers drew up a new flag instead.
Perdue said he would have liked to give Georgians more options on which flag to choose.
"I can understand the disillusionment of those who have worked for a referendum on the post-1956 flag," he said. "I have consistently said that the citizens of Georgia deserve the opportunity to vote on their state flag. Despite its limitations, this bill meets that requirement."
Perdue said he would have voted for the pre-1956 Georgia flag, which is similar to the new flag. He said he does not fear political retaliation from Southern heritage supporters during the next election.
"Good, well-meaning people could and do have opposite views on the flag," he said. "That doesn't make one group morally superior to another."
By late summer, 25,000 of the new flags are expected to be on display at schools, fire stations and other government buildings across the state.
If you enjoyed reading about "New Flag Flies Over Georgia Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 8, 2003, 05:41 PM
I thought it was charming that Ms. Jackson states every person who protested against the new flag must be a "redneck". :rolleyes:
May 8, 2003, 05:45 PM
The Confederate flag wasn't put in there in 1956 for it's "historical connection". It was put in as a political statement against racial equality, pure and simple. As that intent in '56 was pure evil, the visible symbol of that evil intent should have been "yanked" (pardon the pun) a long time ago.
May 8, 2003, 05:56 PM
Jim, the important thing is that it is gone and that it was pulled down by the people of Georgia who corrected their own evil. It gives hope to those of us that people can change and listen to reason.
May 8, 2003, 07:12 PM
Boy I wish I could spell "Flies" in the title! :) I think it is a good thing that it isn't there anymore, for the reasons that Jim stated. But it just irks me when it is okay to label someone as a "redneck" in 2003 whereas in 1956 it was okay to label someone as a "coon". I find it ironic for some reason.
May 8, 2003, 07:50 PM
The brand-new flag that was hoisted Thursday contains the Georgia coat of arms and the words "In God We Trust" on a blue field in the top left corner, with three red-and-white stripes to the right.
How long before that gets challenged?
May 8, 2003, 08:14 PM
May 8, 2003, 09:36 PM
Heh. Check out the similarity to this (http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/southflg.html) (official) confederate flag. ;)
May 8, 2003, 09:44 PM
Some opposed to the new flag (actually the upcoming referendum) have used the first Confederate Flag resemblence issue as a red herring to torpedo the whole issue (i.e., referendum), at least from some news accounts I've read.
May 8, 2003, 10:04 PM
Well, no matter what some people say I don't think there was anything wrong with either of the former flags or the present one. There's plenty of other stuff to worry about in the world instead of what flag us "rednecks" are waving. ;)
May 8, 2003, 10:05 PM
Well, I wasn't really bothered by the old flag.
If someone is bothered by the connection between the current south and the old south, why not move north?
The new one looks nice, not way different from the Texas flag.
I'm pretty sure the simularity to the original Confederate flag is no accident.
This may be WAY too obvious and logical, but what about the pre 1956 flag???? Did it offend anyone? :scrutiny:
May 9, 2003, 12:16 AM
I see both sides of this issue. But leaving aside any debate about the 1956 origin of the flag, the Late Unpleasantness, or race relations ...
The battle flag was the emblem of a military unit, and flying it over a civilian statehouse flies in the face of the American ethic of civilian authority over the military. It was just as inappropriate as would be flying the USMC flag(*) over the U.S. Capitol -- it doesn't matter whether the intention is neutral, good or evil; military flags don't belong on civilian government buildings.
(*) That's not a slur against the Marines, who have my utmost respect (and often awe).
May 9, 2003, 07:11 PM
This is an issue for the people of Georgia to decide. I feel we could care less about what the people of Kali ,Canada etc...think regarding the issue. These locations have no history nor involvement in the war between the states. All they know is what Hollywood has spewed about it over the years. Secondly the flag at issue here is not the "Confederate Battle Flag" nor is it the "Stars and Bars". That is more Hollywood tripe! The proposed new flag is closer to the "Stars and Bars" flag than the 1956 flag was. The flag in question is the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. The biggest flap here regarding the whole issue is that one plank of Sonny Perdues platform as candidate for Governor was that the people of Georgia would decide by vote between the new flag and the 1956 flag. He lied! This in turn has wasted a lot of time on a very small flag issue and has the state in an uproar. Thirdly to the poster that made reference to the people of Georgia, past or present, being evil or involved in some evil that was a petty comment and has no merit.
May 9, 2003, 07:39 PM
Tom, racism is evil. The flag (indeed the Civil War) change was done because of racism.
I do agree that it was up to the people of Georgia. I am heartened that they removed that evil symbol.
May 9, 2003, 07:53 PM
I am heartened that they removed that evil symbol.See? This is where the thread's gonna go off-topic. I've got a half-dozen ancestors who died fighting underneath that flag, and none of them were slave owners. Hell, none were any better than subsistence farmers -- have been that way since the 1760's until my dad got a 1580 on his SAT's and found a way to pay to go to Harvard.
They had something to fight for though, and that something wasn't slavery. Nor were they "evil." There's more to the story than you've been told, friend. I don't know that it's worth going into here, but gross simplifications lead to gross misunderstandings.
May 9, 2003, 08:25 PM
Derek, I can relate. Born and raised in AR, many of my ancestors were sharecroppers. Yep, fought and died under under a flag with similar apperance. It is part of my personal history.
I did find it interesting when I took Sociology, under a black Phd, whom I have a lot of respect for, he didn't have a problem with it.
His words ( paraphrased)
" Its history, good, bad, agree, disagree, it happened. I lost some family fighting under a Confederate flag, the Confederate flag means something to me , and in case you haven't noticed, I'm black".
He told a student wearing a Malcolm X hat , "well if you can do that than others may wear their choice of symbol--just don't get your panties in a wad and start any crap in my class or campus", and we'll get along just fine".
May 9, 2003, 09:08 PM
The "civil war" was no more about racism than the Iraq war was about "freeing" those people or "WMD". You are the victim of too many movies and too much government schooling!
May 9, 2003, 09:19 PM
A few comments from South Georgia...
First, the people of Georgia did not change the flag. It was changed unilaterally by two consecutive Governors, who were afraid to let the people decide, because they thought we would pick the flag with the Confederate crossbars.
Second, wouldn't it be nice if people from other states kept their noses out of our business??
Finally, please remember that one man's symbol of hate is another man's symbol of history.
I dont really care too much what flag we fly over Georgia, but I sure as heck don't think the opinions of Californians and other Yankees matter one bit.
May 9, 2003, 09:24 PM
Tom, private school here, thank you. The reason listed in their declarations of succession was Northern interference (i.e. attempting to free) with the sacred Southern right to own their fellow human beings.
Recently back from Tejas, a Southern state, where I attended another private school. In the state museum for this Southern state, they print on a very large placard the reason that Texas left the Union--it was slavery.
Granted the state historical museum is a governmental institution.:scrutiny: No doubt Georgia changed their state flag in '56 because of an advisory opinion of the Office of Interior Decoration of the Attorney General.
However, as re1973 sez, history is history. Important thing is that this particular segment of evil is over.
May 9, 2003, 10:32 PM
I'm not going to debate the motives of the Civil War. That's crazy.
But in 1956, when the state switched to a blatantly Confederate flag, they did so as intimidation and insult to an entire race.
That was flat-out wrong.
May 9, 2003, 11:13 PM
Obviously, the War of Northern Aggression continues.
May 10, 2003, 12:14 AM
Derek, isn't it funny how no one in the South owned slaves prior to the War of Southern Treason? It does not matter if they did; it matters that they fought to continue it and maintain White Supremacy. (The motto of the Southern Democratic Partry after the War of Southern Treason).
If the War of Southern Treason was not fought for slavery, why the debate during the collapse of the CSA to arm blacks? Why did Robert E. Lee do what he did and say what he did at Saint Paul's. Why would the succession declarations even mention slavery?
The modern economy has brought us lots of revisionist history from the New South recently. But it is a false, free-good history.
The flag change of 1956 was a direct racist statement against Yankee action that made them stop abusing blacks. The change in the flag of Georgia is a retraction of that racist statement.
May 10, 2003, 06:19 AM
Ah more pontification from "the dirt clod state" and of course the S.F. Bay area whose culture should be used as a role model by all. Where it is ok to be a black racist but never to be a white racist. I found it very strange when I joined the military that people from the north had a stronger racist attitude than people from the south. At first I thought that attitude may be put on as some sort of a show while being around southerners because it was felt that we had the same feelings but as time went on I saw that it was no act. Strangely enough I met no one from the bay area when I was in the military so I don't know how they felt. The victors of war get to write the history books so a lot of feel good is written about why the north went to war against the south. Children of Christ freeing the oppressed. I wonder what the Vietnamese write in their history books now? In the south we were taught that most of the slave traders were actually from the north! That the slaves were actually brought here to work in northern factories and due to climatic and other factors they were later sold to the south. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone! El Tejon you may stand upon your soapbox and spout about "evil" and "treason" if you wish but if there was no "south" there would probably be no United States of America at all today. Oh by the way Rodney King doesn't live in the south other than maybe south LA!
May 10, 2003, 07:09 AM
Ah yes, the eternal urge to place the cause of the "War of Northern Agression" on the issue of slavery. In all the pre Politically correct accounts I have read on the reason for Southern secession from the union, the major issue was always States Rights, the right of a State to determine its own destiny without interference from "Big Brother". Seems like I hear a lot of acceptance of this idea when it is applied to CCW issues.
My folks were like so many others, dirt farmers who had no connection with slavery, yet fought and died for the right to determine their own future. They fought for the Army of Northern Virginia under that flag and I find it unaceptable that others demonize it. It was and is a symbol of pride to those who served under it.
May 10, 2003, 08:07 AM
prior to the War of Southern Treason
How different was that from the war of Colonial Treason, in 1776?
May 10, 2003, 09:18 AM
Might as well jump in the fire.
No secret , I'm for less gov't meddlin-period. No gun laws, none of this pc malarky. Me- the Confederate flag symbolizes my dissent with gov't meddlin.
Colonists, as pointed out-rebelled , many others have come to our shores for freedom, they too rebelled . So yeah, I'm a rebel born and raised in the South. My poor sharecropper ancestors rebelled too. I have more of that rebel gene in me than others in my family, and not just those above the Mason-Dixon either. Word is the spelling of our last name was changed to distinguish "us" from the bunch that went along with the crowd. My ancestors fought/ rebelled to keep individual freedoms.
Symbolic, historical meaning for me in that context.
I understand and apppreciate opposing view of the flag and symbolism. Most on this board share a common interest, and I share this regardles of north/south/race/creed religion/sexual preference... etc. I may not always agree, but I respect you. I just ask for the same, and take note of why I choose to feel the way I do.
May 10, 2003, 09:22 AM
Tom, of course, there are northern racist individuals, see Chicago or South Boston. However, many Northern states prohibited slavery from their beginning, such as the states formed from the Northwest Territories--but I don't throw stones or up on any soapbox, I simply point to history.
No one is arguing that the South is not important to the USA. I am pointing out the history of the South and, in particular, what the people of Georgia did in '56. The reason behind the current flag change is racism which has a long history (all over).
I don't know how many slaves Rodney King owned. But if he fought for the "right" to own fellow human beings, he was wrong.
JPM, the official reason the South gave about "states rights" was concern over keeping their slaves. This was the reason dead tree for the CSA.
May 10, 2003, 10:46 AM
Don't forget about North Boston and Harlem! Some extreme racism there! I suppose men like Washington, Jefferson and Madison were traitors also. They owned slaves. They rebeled against the government. Evil men under your definition. Bull Hockey!
May 10, 2003, 11:06 AM
In the 1820s when the New England states threatened to leave the Union, a Southern president declared that he would fill the trees with the bodies of those traitors responsible. It was right to stop treason then and in the 1860s.
Washington, Jefferson and Madison all agreed that slavery was a great evil, but being Southerns they were born into that culture which defended/depended upon it. I do not recall any of those three advocating violence against the United States of America to defend slavery as happened in 1861.
May 10, 2003, 11:32 AM
Why not just let the people of Georgia decide what flag to fly, without input from Yankees and other foreigners?
The high and mighty, moralistic viewpoints of many people were not welcome in the 1860's, 1960's, and even today.
Get off your high horse, and tend to your own business.
May 10, 2003, 11:36 AM
Timewise this is about right. Now is about the time that most of the folks are dying who can recall their grandparents telling them about how really bad was the Rape of Georgia. Schoolbook history just isn't as real for most folks as first person oral accounts.
I figure probably about the youngest children who would have had vivid memories of Shermans war against the children would have been about ten years old in 1865 and their youngest grandchildren who would have sat at their knees listening to their stories would all be dead or in the nursing home now.
In 1956 these same grandchildren would have been young leaders of the community. Talking about blacks as well as whites as Sherman left a lot of blacks to starve that year and a lot of black children's mamas were raped by the yanks.
(Among the old black folks I knew growing up, Mr. Tejon, there were things they talked about which they thought were worse than slavery and segregation. Losing the civil war was one of those things and Sherman was another. You wouldn't know a revisionist if they bit you in the bohunkus.)
May 10, 2003, 11:52 AM
Under your definitions I suggest you take a look at the origins of the American flag. It to was conceived by men you and the crown would call "evil racist rebels". As far as New England leaving the union in 1820, I don't think the southern states opposed it then nor would they now. Anyway this thread is in no way firearms related so it should end now as we all have expressed our opinions of one another in great detail and further discussion would be pointless. Have a great day!
May 10, 2003, 01:09 PM
I've got a half-dozen ancestors who died fighting underneath that flag, and none of them were slave owners. Me too. Most of my ancestors in the 1860 were running around Europe. But those who were here were dirt poor farmers in Virginia. My mother was a Richmond girl born and bred. I was raised and educated in Virginia (Heck, there was a fellow in the class ahead of me in college named Robert E. Lee V. He had first-son to first-son link to a famous general who had some influence on the war). I even own some clothing with that "evil" flag on it.
Now that I've got my Southron bona fides established, I'll repeat that I see both sides.Tom BSecondly the flag at issue here is not the "Confederate Battle Flag" <snip> The flag in question is the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. Huh? :confused: The Battle Flag is the flag of the AoNV. Well, I guess you are correct if your point is that there actually was not one "Battle Flag" but many. However, the flag in question was a battle flag, and given that the most significant and most successful Confederate army -- made up of units from all 11 (13) states -- fought under that flag, it's not much of a leap to call the AoNV's battle flag the Confederate Battle Flag.
As I said before, a military flag does not belong atop a civilian government (but I respect the right of Georgians to decide that, in as much as the got the chance to do that).El Tejon The flag change of 1956 was a direct racist statement against Yankee action that made them stop abusing blacks. On that, you are correct. Historical fact. And it was a sign of their historical ignorance that they put a military flag over a civilian statehouse. The new flag modeled on the Stars and Bars, IMHO, is fine. It is a civilian flag. It honors the history of a sizable portion of the citizenry, but it does not have a direct and strong link to 1956. (Speaking of the Stars and Bars, anyone take a good look at the North Carolina flag lately?)El TejonThe modern economy has brought us lots of revisionist history from the New South recently. But it is a false, free-good history. True enough as far as it goes, but there's also been a lot of feel-good, revisionist mythology in recent decades about virtuous boys in blue marching south to selflessly sacrifice their blood on the altar of freedom. Spare me the pretense at a moral high ground.
Was the war about slavery? In part, yes. Was slavery immoral? Absolutely. Is that all there was to it? Nope, and to say otherwise is to simply partake in the same type of cartoonish, morality-play historical revisionism as those who deny a slavery connection. Frankly, both sides engage in a false dichotomy when they focus on the sole argument of "slavery" vs. "not about slavery." It was both "about slavery" and "not about slavery."
Someone brought up an analogy to the recent Iraq war, and let me run with that: Like with the Civil War, people are engaging in single-issue false dichotomy debates. Even if we get a video tape of W saying, "Hee, hee, hee, Mr. Vice President, I'll finally avenge my father's name, we'll get all that oil and your buddies with get all those reconstruction contracts," that doesn't prove that the war was not also about WMD, rooting out terrorist training camps, and freeing the people of Iraq.
Sometimes, both sides of a war have both virtuous reasons for fighting and immoral reasons.
Similary, to you Yankees, proof of a connection to slavery does not eliminate that the Rebs also had virtuous reasons for fighting, reasons that ought to be near and dear to the heart of an RKBA proponent -- and proof of the virtuous Yankee goal of ending slavery (regardless if it came a tad late in the war) does not excuse the Yanks from their immoral role in destroying the power balance between the feds and the states.
To you Rebs, flip the above around.
As for what region was more racist? Midwesterners in particular have no place to claim any regional high ground whatsoever. It is telling that the resurgence of the Klan in the early 20th century was stronger in the Midwest than the South. And like Tom B, the biggest racist pigs I've ever met came from the Midwest not the South, including one distant in-law from Indiana.
As for Malcolm X hats, I knew a guy who bought a red one with a blue X, and he painted 13 tiny stars on the X ;)
May 10, 2003, 01:34 PM
Well I sure am glad another SYMBOL is gone, now everyone pat yourself on the back because you DID SOMETHING! I suspect Georgia has more pressing matters that should have been dealt with instead of this exercise in stupidity.
May 10, 2003, 01:49 PM
Why shouldn't New England have been "allowed" to seceed, if they so choose?
Were the colonies wrong in seceeding from England?
At the end of the day, people want to get a deal that is good for them and live a happy life, so if a bunch of people decide that they all benefit by joining forces, like as a state or nation, what's wrong with that?
OTOH, if some of them think they can do better for themselves by going off on their own, what's wrong with that? Should a person be able to divorce their spouse, or should they be considered a traitor and hung from a tree?
A "union", is by definition, a voluntary joining of entities, so it is incorrect to think of somehting as a union of one of the partners is there by duress. At that point, there is no more of a Union that in the Soviet Union, which sent tanks and soldiers to various places within it's borders to prevent people from doing what the Southerns wanted to do in the 1860s.
May 10, 2003, 02:03 PM
Cuch, but the proof that the American Civil War was about slavery comes from the Southern states and individuals who stated that their attempted succession was about slavery. The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them. Other factors involved? Yes, of course. But one cannot ignore the elephant in the room. Watching the Southern revisionists ignore slavery is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.
Glock, the attempt of the Southern revisionists to link the Founding Fathers with the CSA is misguided. The American colonists wanted the ancient rights of Englishmen, power over themselves. The South wanted the right not to be interfered with as they owned other people, power over others.
Why did Andrew Jackson threaten to hang the Yankees and the Southern states scream "traitors" to those Yankee states which wished to leave the Union in the 1820s? Because it was levying war on the United States of America. That is treason, exactly what the CSA attempted.
Gmac, if the symbol on the Georgia state flag is so stupid and insignificant, then why did the people of Georgia put it on the state flag in '56? It meant something, right?
I agree it is a matter for the people of Georgia. I disagree as to its importance, or lack thereof. I am glad it is gone.
May 10, 2003, 03:30 PM
The South wanted the right not to be interfered with as they owned other people, power over others.
Didn't the US Supreme Court of the US govt give it's thumbs up to that in Dred Scott? Seems rather hypocritical to criticize the South for doing what your govt claimed is completely kosher.
If what you say is true, then the fact that the South was paying the majority of the taxes in the form of a tarrif, and that money was being spent on corporate welfare projects in the North, had absolutely nothing to do with the war. I guess the expansion westwards had nothing to do with it either, as the North would loose a lot of money and power if the foreign goods shipped west
were to come through low tarrif Southern ports as opposed to high tarrif protectionist Northern ports.
Nahhh, that had nothing to do with it. It was all about morality, money and power had nothing to do with this or any other war.
May 10, 2003, 04:19 PM
Glock, according to the Southern state governments, the CSA Congress and Southern leaders such as Robert E. Lee, the Civil War was about slavery. The 1956 flag change in Georgia was about racism as well. Good to see that evil symbol is gone.
May 10, 2003, 04:50 PM
Why, El Tejon, do you consider the Confederate Battle Flag a symbol of hate, and not a symbol of defiance toward an increasingly onerous federal government that continually reduces states rights?
May 10, 2003, 05:12 PM
Lone, because it was an emblem of the CSA which was founded on hate, oppression and racism.
There is no "state right" to deny another person his civil rights. That's why we have the 14th Amendment, § 5 in particular.
May 10, 2003, 05:24 PM
Racism, hate, and oppression were as prominent in the North as in the South.
Lincoln himself did not want to make human rights an issue in the Civil War, and only did so because he thought, quite correctly, that the Emancipation Proclamation would add a moral element that would rally the country, and in fact the world, to the side of the US.
May 10, 2003, 05:29 PM
What Mr. March said....
May 10, 2003, 05:37 PM
The North fought to free slaves; the South fought to keep them.
Most accounts have Northern soldiers fighting to "preserve the Union." Most of them couldn't have given a rat's knee about setting free people they saw as inferiors.
Some northerners fought to free the slaves and some southerners fought to keep them.
OTOH...Watching the Southern revisionists ignore slavery is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.
Some northerners fought to increase the power of the federal government and some southerners fought to stop that. Watching the Northern revisionist ignore this encroachment by the federal power is like watching the Left ignore the Second Amendment.
May 10, 2003, 06:06 PM
Abraham Lincoln stated on many occasions that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union not to free the slaves
This is not an exact quote unless I'm lucky: If I can preserve the Union without freeing slaves, I will do so. If I can preserve the Union by freeing slaves, I will do so.
So, basically, your position is that Lincoln was lying?:D
Jim and El Tejon: Tell me, y'all both know exactly why the 1956 flag was adopted. I assume that you both have read the minutes of the debate of the bill enabling this adoption? And that this reading is what lead you to your conclusion?
Another question for El Tejon? Who said this...and was he abetting treason?:
"The people of the United States have the constitutional right of amending the Constitution of the United States, or the revolutionary right of overthrowing it."
May 10, 2003, 06:12 PM
The various "pro-Southerners" here keep dragging the conversation back to the Civil War.
That's NOT the issue here. It's about the "war" against civil rights that was going full-bore in 1956.
One of the last remnants of that war just came down.
May 10, 2003, 06:21 PM
Facts about the 1956 Georgia flag: (as opposed to assumptions by folks who failed to do basic research): The flag before this was based on the First National and was designed by Georgia Confederate veterans in the late 1800's. The legislature added the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia in 1956 - NOT, according to the legislative record - to resist school desegregation, but to raise consciousness about the deteriorating battle flags of the state collection. Georgia started one of the first flag conservation movements in the country. The school desegregation proposal came three weeks after the flag law was changed. Even the Atlanta Journal newspaper, in a 1992 investigation of the change, stated that no evidence exists to link the change with racial motives. However, people in this country just prefer to believe mythology (like Washington throwing the silver dollar across the Potomac River) rather than facts - time and time again.
Funny, you didn't answer my question, Jim. The legislative record of the 1956 flag change DOES NOT support your premise that is was a symbol of resistance to civil rights for anyone.
May 10, 2003, 07:25 PM
Bryon, no, Lincoln wasn't lying. I am certain many in the North would have preferred to free the slaves without the South declaring war.
However, the statements on the other side, from General Lee to the Southern state governments to the CSA Congress all say that the South tried to leave because of slavery. The North defended itself against this and freed the slaves.
Flag preservation now? So they wanted to preserve a symbol of evil by putting on the state flag of Georgia as civil rights legislation was pending in Washington? What a conwinkydink!
May 10, 2003, 07:47 PM
prior to the War of Southern TreasonHow different was that from the war of Colonial Treason, in 1776?Because, silly. Treason never prospers. In 1776 the rebels won. In the 1860s they did not. ;)
May 10, 2003, 08:24 PM
I'm suprised no one has mentioned Indiana was once known as the "Klan" state, with more Klan members than in any other state, approximately 300K during the 1920s, or that the Klan controlled Indiana state govt. during the mid-1920s and probably would have for some time to come hadn't the state leader/grand whatever, Stephens (correct name?) been charged with raping Ms. Oberholzer (sp?) to death and the infatuation died out in the ensuing disgust.
My father can remember folks from Logansport, Peru, Kokomo, Wabash, etc. driving over to Marion in the '40s and '50s, b/c they wanted to start trouble with the blacks who lived there in a pretty high concentration.
May 10, 2003, 08:36 PM
CZ, yes, and Red as well. But as you said their evil died a quick death (thank God) and the state government never put Klan's symbol on the Colorado or Indiana flag.
May 10, 2003, 08:41 PM
If the People of Georgia, in a statewide referendum, voted to put the confederate battle flag back on the state flag, what would your reaction be?
May 10, 2003, 08:46 PM
Right now, the California state legislature is trying to pass a law to eliminate evidence of racial bias in CCW permit issuance.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/SAF-AGbill.htm (SAF press release of 5/7/03)
...or my personal alert on the subject:
Now, the last Assembly committee this thing passed through was Appropriations. Here's the official committee digest describing for the legicritters what this thing does:
> AB 1044
> Page 1
> Date of Hearing: April 30, 2003
> ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
> Darrell Steinberg, Chair
> AB 1044 (Negrete McLeod) - As Introduced: February 20, 2003
> Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 7-0
> Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No
> This bill recasts Department of Justice (DOJ) requirements regarding
> retention of applications to carry a concealed weapon and licenses to carry
> a gun. Specifically, this bill:
> 1)Deletes the obligation to file and store all copies of concealed weapon
> permits and instead requires DOJ to maintain a list of all licenses to carry
> a concealed weapon.
> 2)Deletes the requirement that DOJ maintain hard copy printouts of
> gun-related information.
> 3)Makes additional technical changes.
> FISCAL EFFECT
> Negligible costs to DOJ.
> Rationale . This bill is intended to update the concealed weapon permit
> application process. Current law requires DOJ to maintain all records
> provided to the department in compliance with handgun registration rules.
> Part of the information required to be maintained and stored is the
> application for a concealed weapon permit. This information must be
> provided to law enforcement officials, courts, designated government
> agencies, and the registered owner or borrower of the gun. Proponents state
> this information has not proved helpful.
> Analysis Prepared by: Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
With me so far? Of the various changes this bill does, allowing the destruction of records held by local law enforcement agancies and vital to making equal protection claims fly isn't mention at all, it's lumped into "makes additional technical changes".
Why am I discussing this?
Because when a legislature decides to do something nasty, they don't come right out and say they're going to do something nasty!
Do you think Georgia's legislature of 1956 was any different? :scrutiny:
Why the hell do I even need to explain this?
May 10, 2003, 08:46 PM
Lone, I would find such a decision repugnant, but that's just me and I don't vote in Georgia (oddly I do unknowingly vote several times in Chicago elections). It is the decision of the people of Georgia to have whatever flag they so choose.
May 10, 2003, 09:20 PM
If the People of Georgia, in a statewide referendum, voted to put the confederate battle flag back on the state flag, what would your reaction be?Fascinating. IIRC, the general POV of the membership of this board (though not necessarily the poster) is that democracy is mob rule, and we're set up at the federal and (generally speaking) state level as a representative republic for a reason. Does one maintain this opinion even when the results of 'republicanism' don't go 'our' way?
May 10, 2003, 09:33 PM
I am not sure what you are asking, or even if you are asking me?
Is your question rhetorical?
I don't know if you are familiar with the politics regarding the flag here in Georgia. If you are not, then let me know, and I will fill you in, and you will understand why I asked the question you have quoted from me.
So basically you would just be real offended by such a flag, but not really do anything, is that what you are saying? I am not taunting you, just want to know what, if anything, you would want to do about it? Would you want a lawsuit filed to try to stop it?
May 10, 2003, 11:22 PM
i think it's quite funny that many of the people here don't like the government and their lies, yet who controls the "history" that you hear in school and who was it that started the "War of Northern Aggression"? the government. the government tells you guns are bad, and they tell you the Confederate flag's bad. yes, believe the government foolish sheeples, they're not so bad :uhoh:
I'll keep my Confederate flag and my guns, thank you very much.
May 10, 2003, 11:37 PM
I think the right name for that particular conflict was the war of northern aggression. Slavery was a horrible institution, but the southern states had every right to secede. If you compare Lincoln to say, Jefferson Davis, who was the more democratic president? Davis went to the confederate congress for permission for any action he took. Lincoln twisted the constitution to his purpose by starting conscription and a federal income tax. It is easy to look at the war of northern aggression and say, "it was all about slavery." If you take the high road and study it a bit, you'll find that although slavery was definately a small part of it, the major issue and the more important issue was state's rights. The war of northern aggression basically ended state's rights.
May 10, 2003, 11:53 PM
Any state that has the "right" to preserve an institution which is dependent on enslaving other does not have that right as far as I'm concerned. Any state that has the "right" to preserve an institution of taxation without representation does not have that right either. Any state which has the "right" to a so called final solution doesn't have that right.
Do you all believe that states "rights" trump human rights?
May 11, 2003, 12:04 AM
Duh, of course state's rights do not trump human rights. That doesn't change the facts about the war of northern aggression. It was more about state's rights than slavery. As I said, slavery is a horrible institution, but there were more issues involved, especially in the economic realm. Instead of wasting your time debating it with me, take the high road as I suggested and study the issue further. Pay to take a class or something, I'm not going to post one for free on the internet. You need to dig deeper instead of just scratching the surface.
May 11, 2003, 12:32 AM
I'm glad slavery ended, and also that the Union was preserved. Man, do I love these 50 states! (even Georgia, though it was too hot and wet when I was there:D )
May 11, 2003, 02:02 AM
I am glad as well, but one of the prices was the end of state's rights and the beginning of the huge leviathon that is our current federal government.
May 11, 2003, 02:29 AM
Do you find it the slightest bit odd that it was the SCOTUS that gave slavery a big two thumbs up, but that same govt said the Southern states could not go their own way as far as a seperate govt is concerned? Well, we had slaves when we seceeded from England, so where does that leave us?
And it's interesting that you bring up taxation, as the South was the economic cash cow for the North, paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes yet recieving none of the kickbacks. Kinda like slavery, neh?
And just for the record, there were slaves in union states, but shhhhhh, we don't want folks to know that, it spoils the clear black/white picture we like to keep as a myth regarding the war. Many of the Northern states that banned slavery did so not out of any love for blacks, but simply because they didn't want them there. John Adams wrote that "If the institution of slavery had not been extinguished, the people would have slain slave and master alike." Many northerners hated blacks, didn't want them around nor competing for jobs, and also hated whites that would hire/house them as opposed to their white brothers.
If slavery really was the issue, why didn't the Feds just buy all the slaves, and then set them free? A market solution would have worked, and been a bargain compared to the cost of fight an internal war. Or could it be that there was a lot more to this situation than just slavery, and maybe money and power did have something to do with it?
May 11, 2003, 03:04 AM
Would a "market solution" have worked?
Why is it that during the expansion westward, there had to be a slave state added for every free state? Why was the South so desparate to maintain that "balance"?
Because long term, they knew their "way of life" was under threat (where "they" equals the financial/political/social Southern elite who DID own slaves). Any offer to buy the slaves en mass would have led to war.
May 11, 2003, 03:19 AM
I'm done arguing this point. Take the high road and take a class on the subject, or at least read some books about it, but don't just quote the status quo about slavery.
May 11, 2003, 03:32 AM
This country, the south especially, is (should be) ashamed of our history of slavery. It's shocking whenever someone tries to downplay its importance.
May 11, 2003, 10:12 AM
Yes slavery is bad, really bad. No one disagrees.
Thats not what the battle flag represents to most southerners though.
May 11, 2003, 10:39 AM
Lone, lawsuit? Goodness, no. On what grounds? It hurts a Yankees feelings? It spits on the graves of my ancestors? Georgia's flag is Georgia's problem. Let them solve it.
Preservation of slavery is what the South fought for, explicitly and implicitly. Of course, that symbol became something else over time as the Old South became the New South. However, it represents an evil that must be confronted.
May 11, 2003, 11:17 AM
Preservation of slavery is what the South fought for, explicitly and implicitly.
I will certainly agree, sir.
I will even stipulate that if the CSA had won the war that it would have resulted in a catastrophe for both the North and the South...as well as Europe...in the next six decades.
Where I vehemently disagree is with the premise that slavery was THE issue. It was not.
I've never seen a convincing or even semi-convincing argument presented by the supporters of your position to explain these facts:
1)Slave owning Southerners fought for the Union.
2)Non-slave owning Northeners fought for the Confederacy.
3) The widespread riots that kept cropping up in the North every time that the abolitionists suggested that the war was being fought for the purpose of freeing slaves.
Just as an aside, perhaps you should peruse a list of the largest slave holders in the state of South Carolina just before the War of Northern Aggression. Hint: pay particular attention to the race of the slave holders.
None of us southerners are descended from slave owners? Bull. I am. There are some rich southerners in my ancestry. There are also some black slaves in the early to mid 1700's. Today I've fairly close kin that consider themselves to be black...second cousins and a great uncle. This is really irrelevant to the present discussion. It's added only to demonstrate that this issue isn't nearly as...black and white...as some would have it.
Oh, one more thing. Those Northeners who try to wrap their ancestors in a shroud of high morality due to this war...need to try sell it to someone whose ancestors didn't live in Sherman's path nor to someone whose ancestors didn't endure "Reconstruction." Reeducation in the communist sense would be closer. Reconstruction? I can show you acres of moldering foundations that somehow got passed by Reconstruction. Hint again: Check out the per capita income of the South before the war...then check out when it reached that level again...and I'm not talking about per capita income excluding counting the blacks.
May 11, 2003, 01:18 PM
It is real easy to use the liberal tactic of sloganizing on this issue by stating the obvious, "slavery is bad" without taking a hard look at the facts. Educate yourself if you want to argue about it. Lincoln had NO interest in freeing the slaves until it benefited him politically.
May 11, 2003, 02:20 PM
This topic about southern flags and slavery and other things that happened 150 years ago seems to be very personal to you. Did you have Great Great Grandfathers/mothers that were slaves at one time? Someone perhaps killed in the War Between the States? Or do you just enjoy stirring the pot and inflating your ego thinking your state was a great liberator and defeated evil. Tejon tell us about your family tree and the part they played in Indiana's war of liberation. I am curious. Or are you only a TROLL?
May 11, 2003, 02:33 PM
HBK, regardless of Northern motives, the war was about slavery to the South. The facts reveal that the South attacked the North for the reason that they wished to defend slavery, explicitly and implicitly.
Bryon, wow, a Southern who admits that his ancestors owned slaves! That's a first for me. Usually we get the "dirt poor" or "never owned slaves themselves."
As to each soldier's motives, I have no idea. I could only tell you that it would depend. However, the official governmental reasons are well documented.
As for the suffering of the South, that is Civil War. It could have been much worse if Lee had not given up when he did. The South suffered far less, despite the calls for justice and vengence from my own ancestors, than any other group which betrayed its country thanks to the inherent mercy of the North.
I know the South resented its reintegration into the nation and fought bitterly against the civil rights given the new freedmen, but that is why the state of Georgia changed its flag in '56. I am glad that horrible symbol is gone.
May 11, 2003, 03:42 PM
Jim March That's NOT the issue here. It's about the "war" against civil rights that was going full-bore in 1956.
Jim does have a point here: the offense that people take in the battle flag comes more from its use during the 1950s than in the 1860s.
Unfortunately, the battle flag was taken up by segregationists in the 1950s. The flag is flown by Klan types. Whatever it originally meant, that meaning has changed for the worse.
El Tejon the state government never put Klan's symbol on the Colorado or Indiana flag. Yes, but Colorado and Indiana do fly a Klan flag over their statehouses every day. See it here (http://www.isil.org/resources/usdocs/american-flag.jpg). Why don't you want that Klan symbol taken off your statehouse? For shame! ;) At least the battle flag isn't also associated with near genocide.
El Tejon Bryon, wow, a Southern who admits that his ancestors owned slaves! That's a first for me. Usually we get the "dirt poor" or "never owned slaves themselves."
1) Most Southerners were poor farmers.
2) A minority owned slaves.
Therefore it is logical that most people with Southern ancestors are descended from poor non-slave owners.
May 11, 2003, 03:43 PM
official governmental reasons are well documented They are, I agree. You need to hit the books or a least watch "The Civil War" by Ken Burns.
You should know that only a small percentage of people could afford Slaves back then. Laws in the south were past that anyone who Owned Slaves did not have to fight. A Rich man's war a Poor boy's Fight. I have ancestors that fought on both sides. The Southern side did not own slaves could barley feed their families And like the Northern counter parts they did not give a rat's butt about the slavery issue the poor men of the time were rounded up and forced to join. The Flag issue is a moot point. Nothing but total eraser of all southern monuments and memorials of our fallen ancestors will appease the northern bigots and the NAACP.
May 11, 2003, 04:08 PM
Whatever. Your statement is false. The war was about FAR MORE than slavery. It was more about state's rights. Lincoln did NOT run on a platform to free the slaves. He had no interest in freeing the slaves until 1863. He often said that if he could preserve the Union and keep the institution of slavery, then he would. The southern states did not secede because Lincoln was going to end slavery. They seceded because the federal government was beginning to take over domains which were exclusive to the states. I would understand all the manure being shoveled about the south attacking the north to keep slavery if the facts were different, but the fact is slavery was not in danger because Lincoln was not going to touch it.
May 11, 2003, 04:18 PM
You need to hit the books or a least watch "The Civil War" by Ken Burns.
Nope sorry anyhting on TV is not appropriate to cite as an authority on anything..:D
May 11, 2003, 09:27 PM
HBK, no, not false at all. If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, why did the Southern states say it was about slavery when they tried to leave? Why did the CSA Congress say it was? Why did Bobby Lee say it was?
cuch, you would connect the Klan to the American flag? NBF wouldn't like that at all.
May 11, 2003, 10:05 PM
There seem to be a few points of mine that you are intent on dodging, so why don't you address the specifically instead of making a general comment without any backing?
- If the South went to war only for slavery, why is it that the overwhelming majority of those that went to war owned no slaves?
Would so many young men go to war against a numerically superior foe and endure 4 years of hardship so that a few rich Southern men could keep their slaves?
Why did many high ranking generals in the CSA own no slaves? Men such as:
General Robert E. Lee
General Joseph Johnston
General A.P. Hill
General Fitzhugh Lee
General JEB Stuart
I recall a letter written by an ordinary CSA infantryman "I was soldier in Virginia in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met any Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery...What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government"
I can dig up literally hundreds of references just like this, if you like, so please drop the insulting and inaccurate myth that the South went to war for slavery, because it stands in obvious contrast to a multitude of historical evidence.
The facts reveal that the South attacked the North...
You mean when Lincoln garrisoned Fort Sumner, when the South was making noise about the protectionist policies of the govt? What a shame that would have been, the North would have lost their ability to juice the South via tarrifs, which is why they garrisoned the Fort, against Lincoln's word, which is why South took action. How different is that from the preemptive strike thing that Bush was trying to use in order to justify attacking Iraq?
Oh, and I'm quite intruiged at your claim that Northern intentions for the war are irrelevant, but that the South's were. So if the North invaded the South only for economic gain and political power, it's ok, because the South wanted to leave because of slavery? By that reasoning, it was ok for Hitler to invade the USSR, even if he wanted it for an Aryan playground, because the USSR was evil, and did naughty things to it's people?
The South suffered far less, despite the calls for justice and vengence from my own ancestors
So after the North tries every trick in the book to expolit the South, the South decide to exercise their right to self-determination, like the founding Fathers did, and create their own government, yet you claim the right to vengence and justice?
What if NH, sick of the nonsense the Federal government is pulling, decides to seceed, will you come over here with your guns drawn, and tell us we're not allowed to do so? Will you give your support to those that do?
The South did not invade the North, it was the other way around. Where do you get off claiming you deserve vengence? It's kinda like the Feds being angry when they bust down someone's door and wreak their house, because the Feds were wronged somehow:rolleyes:
than any other group which betrayed its country
Again, is NH betraying the US if they decide, for whatever reason, to leave and start their own country?
thanks to the inherent mercy of the North
You mean the mass rapes, looting, attempted genocide, etc?
If you really believe that the whole thing was so black and white, that the South was pure evil and the North was a white knight in shining armor, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
May 12, 2003, 01:03 PM
cuch, you would connect the Klan to the American flag? NBF wouldn't like that at all. It's one of the flags the Klan uses. If the battle flag is a "Klan flag" (as you say), then so is Old Glory (as is the Protestant flag). If, as you imply, a flag is despicable because the Klan has adopted it, then you have to despise Old Glory.
Why would the National Bowlers' Federation care what I write?
If you enjoyed reading about "New Flag Flies Over Georgia Today" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!