Category Archives: Confederate flag

The rambling monument

By the way, if you were surprised when I told you back here that the Confederate monument has not always been in the most prominent location in Columbia, you might be interested to read this excerpt from a column I wrote for July 2, 2000 — the day after the flag moved from the dome to the monument:

Well, here’s a fun fact to know and tell: The state’s official monument to Confederate soldiers was not always in that location. In fact, that isn’t even the original monument.

I had heard this in the past but just read some confirmation of it this past week, in a column written in 1971 by a former State editor. When I called Charles Wickenberg, who is now retired, to ask where he got his facts, he wasn’t sure after all these years. But the folks at the S.C. Department of Archives and History were able to confirm the story for me. It goes like this:

The original monument , in fact, wasn’t even on the State House grounds. It was initially erected on Arsenal Hill, but a problem developed – it was sitting on quicksand. So it was moved to the top of a hill at the entrance of Elmwood cemetery.

The monument finally made it to the State House grounds in 1879. But it didn’t go where it is now. It was placed instead “near the eastern end of the building, about 60 feet from the front wall and 100 feet from the present site,” Mr. Wickenberg wrote.

But another problem developed: The monument kept getting struck by lightning. “The last stroke” hit on June 22, 1882, and demolished the stone figure.

At this point, if I were one of the folks in charge of this monument , I might have started to wonder about the whole enterprise. But folks back then were made of sterner stuff, and they soldiered on, so to speak.

At this point a new base was obtained, with stirring words inscribed upon it, and “a new statue, chiseled in Italy,” placed at the top. On May 9, 1884, the new monument was unveiled and dedicated in the same location in which we find it today.

Of course, my purpose in writing that was to suggest, The thing doesn’t have to stay there! There were, and are, plenty of other places for it — places that seemed quite suitable to the generation that actually experienced the War.

Why not a triumphal arch for the Gamecocks?

11 Replies

I’ll be at the parade for the National Champion Gamecocks on Friday, and I’m sure it will be great, but… we had a parade last year. And we flew a flag from the State House, etc.

All of that was very fine. But it seems like when they win the championship two years in a row, we ought to do something exponentially bigger. Something that really shows some lasting, monumental pride in the new Gamecock dynasty.

Yesterday, I was exchanging Tweets with Aaron Sheinin about the big win (he called it a “Great win for the common man”), when it hit me, and I responded:

If we don’t build a triumphal arch in front of the State House, we’ll never have a better chance. (Hey, I think I’ll blog that.)

Why not? Just move the Confederate soldier monument, and its flag, back to Elmwood Cemetery where it used to be (bet you didn’t know that), and replace it with something on the order of the monument they have in Paris, or Washington Square, or the Marble Arch in London?

This afternoon I heard SC Commerce Sec. Bobby Hitt touting the Gamecocks achievement as a sign to the world (and really, to ourselves) of what we can do in South Carolina if we work as a team. Instead of, I would add, fighting with each other all the time.

Wouldn’t that be awesome? Isn’t it high time that we start defining ourselves in terms of a famous victory, instead of our historic defeat? Isn’t it time to stop wallowing in the biggest mistake our (or any other) state ever made, and proclaim to the world just how great we can be?

I think so.

National media discover we’re (gasp!) still fighting the Civil War — where have they been?

26 Replies

The dim, hazy past? Think again...

Certainly not in South Carolina, where a week hardly passes without new Nullification legislation passing through the State House.

A friend brought my attention today to this CNN item, which cites various “ways we’re still fighting the Civil War.” The most pertinent passage:

Nullification, states’ rights and secession. Those terms might sound like they’re lifted from a Civil War history book, but they’re actually making a comeback on the national stage today.

Since the rise of the Tea Party and debate over the new health care law, more Republican lawmakers have brandished those terms. Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states invoked nullification to thwart the new health care law, according to a recent USA Today article.

Well, duh.

Other parts of the piece were less impressive. For instance this standard-issue 2011 take on what a dangerous thing religion is:

If you think the culture wars are heated now, check out mid-19th century America. The Civil War took place during a period of pervasive piety when both North and South demonized one another with self-righteous, biblical language, one historian says.

The war erupted not long after the “Second Great Awakening” sparked a national religious revival. Reform movements spread across the country. Thousands of Americans repented of their sins at frontier campfire meetings and readied themselves for the Second Coming.

They got war instead. Their moral certitude helped make it happen, says David Goldfield, author of “America Aflame,” a new book that examines evangelical Christianity’s impact on the war.

Goldfield says evangelical Christianity “poisoned the political process” because the American system of government depends on compromise and moderation, and evangelical religion abhors both because “how do you compromise with sin.”

Which sort of prompts one to ask, So… what are you saying? That owning other people isn’t a sin? Just curious.

How many SC lawmakers does it take to screw up light bulbs?

12 Replies

You thought that SC lawmakers had already done everything they could possibly do to emphasize to the world that, if given the slightest excuse, they would secede all over again? Well, you were wrong.

These boys are creative, and they never miss a new way to celebrate the spirit of Nullification. This just in:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina legislators are throwing a lifeline to traditional incandescent light bulbs as they try to trump federal energy standards.

The House on Thursday approved legislation with a 76-20 vote that would allow companies to manufacture the bulbs in South Carolina and sell them here.

The measure needs routine final approval next week before heading to the Senate.

Federal energy standards have manufacturers turning to compact fluorescent, halogen and LED bulbs. Manufacturers phase out traditional 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year.

Proponents say more efficient bulbs cost too much and they don’t like the light they provide.

The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act allows manufacturers to make the traditional bulbs and stamp them as “Made in South Carolina.” They could only be sold in the Palmetto State.

Someone who doesn’t understand South Carolina — someone who thinks the sesquicentennial of secession is a commemoration of the way we were, rather than a celebration of who we ARE — might think that this is just a particularly moronic way of rejecting any kind of concern for the planet as “liberal,” and therefore beyond the pale.

But if you really do understand South Carolina, you realize that yes, it’s that, but it’s also a chance to relive the heady days of 1860, and cock a snook at the federal gummint. Especially that Obama.

So that’s, what? Three birds with one stone? Environmentalism. The Union. And Obama.

These guys aren’t dummies, no matter what you think. They are geniuses at what they do.

They’re going to keep trying until they provoke that Obama enough that he tries to resupply Fort Sumter. They’ll be ready for him, too.

Surging sea of rage (not): The ‘Reinstate Darla Moore’ rally

15 Replies

Well, that was a bust. As I Tweeted when I arrived at the “Reinstate Darla Moore” rally at the State House on this sunny day:

@BradWarthen
Brad Warthen

The big protest over Darla Moore being unceremoniously dumped by Nikki Haley looks like a bit of a bust so far. They DID say noon, right?

As I said again at 12:43, it was still a bust. Which is a shame. Because Nikki Haley insulted all of the 30,000 or so students on the Columbia campus alone with her petty patronage move — not to mention the way she dissed the other 4 million of us who have a right to expect a governor to exercise some modicum of responsible stewardship at our most important state institutions. Instead of, you know, what she did.

Old New Left Activist Tom Turnipseed grumbled about these kids today who don’t know how to stage a protest: They think they do something with social media, and it’s done, he says. Well, yes — the “We Support Darla Moore” Facebook page has attracted 4,703 people who probably think they’ve made a statement by “liking” it.

But that doesn’t mean that Martha Susan Morris, the 22-year-old economic and poli sci senior who started the “Students for the Reinstatement of Miss Darla Moore” FB page, lacks seriousness in her convictions.

After all, she showed up, and spoke at the rally — once it finally got around to getting started. And she understood why she should be there, and why thousands of others should have been there with her:

Gov. Haley cited that her main reason for replacing Mrs. Moore with Mr. Cofield was the fact that Mr. Cofield’s vision was more clearly aligned with her own.

Martha Susan Morris

And we the students ask ‘What vision?’ What vision is not aligning with Gov. Haley…?… Mrs. Moore’s vision for years has been one of high expectations, increased educational funding, and increased standards for universities, research and development in our state…. and we could not be more grateful to her…

Our university is on the upswing, and we want her to be a part of it. She’s been an amazing benefactor… since she was appointed to the board in 1999…

Amen to that, Martha Susan. She said afterward that she started the FB page at 4 a.m. after having hearing about Ms. Moore being dumped. When she next looked at the page later that morning, there were 400 fans. There are now 2,495.

Too bad more of them didn’t show up. Because although we know Nikki Haley loves her some Facebook, she’d have been a tad more impressed to look out her window and see some folks show up to protest her action. Not that she’d have changed her mind, but it would have made an impression.

One of the people I chatted with before leaving was Candace Romero, communications director of the South Carolina House Democratic Caucus, who observed how much of the crowd were media types, and she complained that that there was no media turnout like that for the “Rally for a Moral Budget” back on March 12. (I asked her, and her Senate counterpart Phil Bailey, whether they were in any way involved in this rally. No, and no. They had just dropped by. That’s the answer I got from all the usual suspect-types I found.)

Well. As one who didn’t even thinking about going downtown on a Saturday for that particular quixotic gesture, I must accept service. But I will add that good-government-type rallies tend not to draw multitudes. Have it about something people get passionate about, such as the Confederate flag, and you can get a crowd (5,000 or so if it’s pro, as many as 60,000 if it’s anti).

Which is a shame. Today’s rally was for good government — or at least, against grossly irresponsible government. (I enjoyed hearing a speaker who followed Martha Susan say he and his fellow protesters were there to “change the usual business of government.” You know, what Nikki Haley is always saying she wants to do — right before she does something as old-line political Business-As-Usual as dumping a highly respected board member in favor of someone whose only known qualification is having contributed to her campaign.)

But it was a bust.

Oh, one more thing — it was announced, late in the rally, that Darla Moore herself will address students “in a town-hall meeting at 12:15 p.m. Thursday, March 24, in the Russell House.”

I wonder whether that will be better-attended.

: Martha Susan Morris

Here’s where that path leads, Lindsey

9 Replies

Just to elaborate a bit on that last post, in which I wrote about how once-sensible Republicans are dancing with madness these days…

I’d just like to point out to Sen. Graham where all this “hate Obamacare to the point that we’ll hurt actual South Carolinians by blowing it up” stuff leads.

Continue down that path, and you cease to be that voice of reason you’ve always been in Washington, that Gang of 14 guy, the guy who took a bullet for comprehensive immigration reform, the guy who at least for a time fought for the Energy Party platform at great personal political risk, the guy who could get President Obama to listen to reason on national security. You cease being all that (which is a national tragedy, because the nation NEEDS you to play that role), and you end up being state Sen. Lee Bright. I mean this guy:

Sen. Lee Bright: SC should coin its own money

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina’s independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

Bright’s joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1.

The Federal Reserve System has come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come, according to the legislation.

“If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians,” Bright said in an interview Friday.

“If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup.”

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency…

Thank Bud for bringing that to my attention. I hadn’t seen coverage of it. But the Boston Globe has noted it. And these guys are applauding it. (This really embarrassing stuff tends to come to my attention this way. While SC media is trying to look the other way — or rather spending its time covering legislation that might actually pass, which sounds better — the rest of the country is chortling. When Mike Pitts proposed doing away with the Yankee dollar and replacing it with gold and silver, I first learned about it from Burl Burlingame and The Onion.)

Sen. Bright, by the way, was last seen pushing broader legislation to protect South Carolina’s “rights” (which rights were under siege was unclear, but then it usual is) from encroaching federal power in general. You may or may not recall that I wrote about it in a post headlined “These guys cannot POSSIBLY be serious.” I led with a reference to that scene from “Gettysburg” with the Confederate prisoners speaking nonsensically about fighting for their nonspecific “rats.” You know how I like movie allusions.

Anyway, that’s where you could end up.

You don’t want to go there, do you, Lindsey? I didn’t think so. But that’s where this “seceding from Obamacare” stuff leads…

Nobody can insult BOTH blacks and whites like Robert Ford

11 Replies

Well, here we go again. The AP story has already been picked up by The Seattle Times and The Houston Chronicle, just for starters:

COLUMBIA, S.C. — An African-American lawmaker in South Carolina said Tuesday that stricter illegal immigration laws would hurt the state because blacks and whites don’t work as hard as Hispanics.

State Sen. Robert Ford made his remarks during a Senate committee debate over an Arizona-style immigration law, eliciting a smattering of nervous laughter in the chamber after he said “brothers” don’t work as hard as Mexicans. He continued that his “blue-eyed brothers” don’t either.

Once his ancestors were freed from slavery, he said, they didn’t want to do any more hard work, so they were replaced by Chinese and Japanese.

“We need these workers here. A lot of people aren’t going to do certain type of work in this country,” said Ford, D-Charleston. “The brothers are going to find ways to take a break. Ever since this country was built, we’ve had somebody do the work for us.”

He recalled to senators that four workers in the country illegally showed up on his lawn and finished mowing, edging and other work in 30 minutes that would take others much longer, and only wanted $10 for the job. He went on to say he recommended the workers to his neighbors, and one local lawn care businessman lost work — a story one senator remarked was hurting, not helping, his case.

Both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Association for the Advancement of White People — no wait; that second one should be the GOP — are less than pleased by the remarks. The latter is even less pleased than the former.

For my part, the senator from Comic Relief provokes several thoughts:

He just really says what he thinks, doesn’t he? I think he’s bucking for the Fritz Hollings Appalling Outburts Award, but he’s trying too hard. (And he’s not nearly as funny.)
After those immigrants did all that hard work on his land for a pittance, did they break out in a stirring rendition of “Cielito Lindo,” to let the boss man know how happy they were? That’s about all that’s missing from that anecdote, to make it complete.
Illegal immigrants have a warm-enough time of it with all the enemies they have in SC politics. They really, really don’t need a friend like Robert Ford.
Of blacks and whites, he said “Everybody in America finds ways to take a break.” Maybe it’s time that Sen. Ford took a permanent break from service in our Legislature.

Robert Ford, of course, has been causing both blacks and whites to roll their eyes for years. Remember his proposal to keep the Confederate flag atop the State House, but add to it a Black Liberation Flag? Nothing like that for unifying our state — a flag for the white folks (or some of them) and one to keep the black folks happy, too. What joy. (As he put it, “They would keep their flag, we would get a flag and we would keep our mouths shut.”) Oh, and how about when he and fellow senator Glenn McConnell did their act where Robert would wear a dashiki and Glenn one of his many Confederate uniforms? Those crazy cutups.

Rotten, stinking attitudes in the SC delegation

17 Replies

Here’s what Mick Mulvaney had to say about the laudable decision of Joe Wilson and others to sit with members of the opposite party during the State of the State:

“If you’re looking for empty symbolism, where one sits at the State of the Union (address) might be at the top of the list.”

Translation:

If you’re looking for obvious examples of giving the people of this country the finger, the refusal to do such a simple thing as sit without regard to party might be at the top of the list.

Of course it’s a small thing. Just like, say, taking down the Confederate Flag from the Statehouse grounds — which you will also hear state lawmakers dismissed because they have so many more important things to do and think about.

And of course, they DO have many more important (or at least, less embarrassing) things to deal with. The problem is that they’ll never make progress on the things that really matter when they have such a powerful mental block against doing something so small as taking the flag down. Or, in the case of Congress, ending the egregious practice of sitting by party during the presidential address.

Simple, yes. But there is no one thing lawmakers could do that would be as easy, but say so much, as taking this action.

I’ll get back to the flag, but about this seating arrangements thing: The problem is that these guys are to entirely stuck in the rut of this abominable practice of sitting by party that it doesn’t occur to them, ever, that it is an abomination. You and I may think they were elected to represent us and to serve the nation. But THEY obviously think that they are there to serve their respective parties. They say this in the most obvious of ways — by only sitting with members of their party, by only caring what their party wants them to do or say, by thinking party first, last and always. Serving the party is SO automatic with them, that it doesn’t even occur to them that it’s a problem. They are even offended by the suggestion that it might be. Which tells you an awful lot about these guys.

This is, as I say, an abomination, and inexcusable. And so easy to address.

Which brings me back to the flag. What do these two issues have in common? The fact that they would be so easy to accomplish. Yes, I know state lawmakers think it would be really hard. But all that is needed to accomplish it is the same, simple thing it would take to end the execrable practice of sitting by party in Congress (and not only on the night of the State of the Union, but every day): All that have to do is GROW UP, and gain a sense of perspective. And then it’s easy.

Is celebrating secession offensive? Yeah. Duh. And so much more than that…

19 Replies

Today I retweeted something that I got from Chris Haire, who got it from @skirtCharleston:

someone shouted “you lie” at mayor riley when he said secession was caused by a defense of slavery at sesquicentennial event this am.

Did that actually happen? Apparently so:

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley was interrupted by an audience member who yelled out, “You’re a liar!” as Riley talked about the direct relationship between slavery and secession during the unveiling of a historical marker Monday.

About 100 people crowded along a Meeting Street sidewalk at the site of the former Institute Hall — where South Carolinians signed the Ordinance of Secession exactly 150 years before.

“That the cause of this disastrous secession was an expressed need to protect the inhumane and immoral institution of slavery is undeniable,” Riley said, prompting the outburst. “The statement of causes mentions slavery 31 times.”…

Where else in the world, I ask you, would such a simple, mild and OBVIOUS statement (few historical documents make fewer bones about motives than the document Mayor Joe alludes to) elicit such a response? Wherever it is, I don’t want to go there. We’ve got our hands full dealing with our homegrown madness.

Earlier, I got this come-on to an online survey:

POLL – Celebrating Secession: Do you find it offensive to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the signing of the…http://bit.ly/dNLi1h

Sigh. OK, I’ll answer the question which doesn’t seem worth asking: Yes. Duh. The operative word being “celebrate.”

As for the word “offensive,” well, that seems rather inadequate. I suppose in our PC times, it’s the highest opprobrium that most folks in the MSM seem capable of coming up with. “Appalling” would work. “Insupportable” would, too. “Unconscionable” would be another. Then there’s always “embarrassing.”

My point is not that someone somewhere — say, to oversimplify, the descendants of slaves — would be “offended.” That’s too easily dismissed by too many. (As the surly whites who resent blacks’ resentment over slavery would point out, everybody’s offended by something. They would say this as though such moral equivalence were valid, as though black folks’ being touchy about celebrations of secession were like my being offended by Reality TV.) My point is that the very notion that anyone would even conceive of celebrating — rather than “commemorating,” or “marking,” or “mourning,” or “ritualistically regretting” — the very worst moment in South Carolina history, is a slap in the face to anyone who hopes in general for the human species (one would hope it could make some progress) or specifically for South Carolina.

It’s awful enough that this one act stands as the single indisputably biggest impact that South Carolina has ever had on U.S., or world, history. But what does one say about a people, a population, that — 150 years after this Greatest Error of All Time, which led directly to our bloodiest war and to a century and a half of South Carolina trailing the rest of the world economically — they would think it cute, or fun, or a lark, or what have you, to mark the episode by dressing up and dancing the Virginia Reel?

I mean, seriously, what is WRONG with such a people, such an organism, that would celebrate something so harmful to itself, much less to others?

Lonnie Randolph of the NAACP calls it “nothing more than a celebration of slavery.” Well, yeah. Duh again. But that pretty much goes without saying. The point I’d like to add to the obvious is that it is also a celebration of stupidity, of dysfunction, of never, ever learning.

In fact, what we’ve done, from the time of Wade Hampton to the time of Glenn McConnell, is devolve. We’ve slipped backwards. The guys who signed the Ordinance of Secession were acting in their rational self-interest, something even the merchants of the North probably understood. Be morally appalled at that if you’re so inclined (and most people living in the West in this century would be), but it made some kind of sense. But for anyone today to look back on that act and celebrate it, seek to identify with it, get jollies from dressing up and in any way trying to re-enact that occurrence, makes NO sense of any kind, beyond a sort of self-destructive perversity.

And don’t give me that about the act of secession being an assertion of freedom-loving SC whites throwing off the oppressive gummint yoke, because it just proves my point. That attitude — that “Goldang it, but ain’t nobody gonna tell me how to live MAH LAHF” or make me pay taxes or whatever — is probably the single pathological manifestation most responsible for the fact that we have been unable to get it together in this state and climb out from under the shadow of the conflict that we insisted upon precipitating. The far more refined forms of this — Sanfordism, and other ways of asserting that we do NOT need to work together as a society to solve common problems, because we are free individuals who don’t need each other — have done just as much to hold us back as the old racist creeds of Tillman and the like.

It is, indeed, a pathology. And parties that “celebrate” secession are a manifestation of it.

This is for you, Kathryn: A rerun of Nikki and the neo-Confederates

5 Replies

Kathryn Fenner, apparently in no mood for nuance at this point in the election, complained that I have posted a couple of videos of Nikki Haley that she (Kathryn) believed cast her in a positive light.

Well, perhaps they did, if you are someone who was likely to vote for Nikki anyway, and are immune to the logical arguments that accompany the clips. Personally, I thought the Wagner background music I put on one of them was a bit heavy-handed, but maybe you have to hit some people over the head with a Blitzkrieg.

So for Kathryn’s sake, and on the off-chance that it might help voters remember just how low Nikki will stoop to win, I rerun the clip of Nikki kowtowing to folks who think the only mistake that the Confederacy made was not winning the war and succeeding in seceding from the Union.

She was seeking the support of a group called “South Carolina Palmetto Patriots,” a group whose 2010 agenda states:

The Federal government has stolen our liberties and rights and nullified our ability to self govern as a state. It is the obligation of all people of our great state to restore unto ourselves and our children these inalienable rights as set forth in The Constitution of the United States of America.

There are more clips at the group’s website.

I have to be careful what I say about this group, because Doug gets on me when I suggest that there may be a racial tinge in the attitude of anyone who claims NOT to be motivated by race. And I don’t want to get in trouble with Doug…

It’s “a great statement” all right, Senator

28 Replies

I found this photo on thestate.com, courtesy of Thomas C. Hanson. If either The State or Mr. Hanson has a problem with my running it, they should contact me at brad@bradwarthen.com. I just felt it was important to give y'all a chance to discuss it.

Glenn McConnell says the above photo is “a great statement as to how far this state has come.” It certainly is, Senator. It shows that in the past 147 years, South Carolina has advanced at least several days, perhaps even a week, past 1862. I look at this photo, and I know in my bones that in South Carolina, 1863 has finally arrived!

I’ll say one more thing. The issue to me isn’t whether re-enacting or “interpreting” history is a good or bad thing. The issue for me is how into this stuff the senator, who is arguably the most powerful politician in our state, is. He was really pumped, wasn’t he? He really does love dressing the part.

You may have other things to say.

Nikki Haley, Vincent Sheheen offer clear choice on Confederate flag

35 Replies

The contrast between Vincent Sheheen and Nikki Haley will be sharp on a lot of issues, and we’ll get to them over the coming months.

But today, I want to highlight the difference between them on the Confederate flag flying on our State House grounds, as a window into broader differences. (And why that issue today? Because today is the 10th anniversary of the day it moved from the dome to the spot behind the soldier monument.)

Gina Smith in The State provided the following vignettes showing the difference. From Vincent Sheheen:

If elected governor in November, Sheheen said he is open to discussing the removal of the flag from the State House grounds. He was elected to the S.C. House a year after the compromise.

“We must develop an environment that creates jobs,” Sheheen said. “We cannot give up any edge that South Carolina has in attracting a large employer coming to South Carolina. After the last eight years, we must be proactive in creating a positive image of our state to the world.”

Sheheen offers no details, though, including locations where he would consider having the flag relocated.

“I have no predetermined proposal on the flag, but would like to work with legislative leaders, business leaders and community leaders to finally reach consensus. My job as governor will be to bring people together to reach consensus on how best to heal any divisions, including the flag,” he said.

It is unclear whether Sheheen supports the NAACP’s boycott.

And from Nikki Haley:

Haley wasn’t elected to the House until 2004. Haley believes a compromise was reached and the issue resolved.

“It was settled and it has been put away. And I don’t have any intentions of bringing it back up or making it an issue,” she said in a recent interview with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Instead, Haley said her focus is on making state government more transparent and more business-friendly. “If the people aren’t focused on the flag, it’s hard to see why the governor and General Assembly should be,” said Rob Godfrey, Haley’s spokesman.

Haley implied in the Sons of Confederate Veterans interview that she would work with the NAACP and others who want the flag removed from the State House grounds to address the NAACP boycott. “I’m the perfect person to deal with the boycott. Because, as a minority female, I’m going to go and talk to them and I’m going to go and let them know that every state has their traditions. … But we need to talk about business. And we need to talk about having (businesses) come into our state …”

As you see, Vincent understands that the time must come when we stop portraying our state to the world as a haven for neo-Confederate extremists who insist upon continuing to embrace the worst moments of our history. He’s just too diplomatic to put it in quite those terms. If he had the chance, he’d get it down. By the way, his Uncle Bob, the former speaker, had the best idea of all about what to do about the flag: Replace it with a bronze plaque noting that it once flew here. That’s a solution that would enable us to move on. But the GOP leadership refused to seriously consider that or any other reasonable solution on the ONE DAY they allowed for debate before rushing to embrace this “compromise” that settled nothing.

Nikki, however, promises not to touch it, which is the standard South Carolina Republican response. And now that she’s promised it to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, that’s that. Which is a real shame, given that since she wasn’t in the Legislature at the time, no one could legitimately pretend that she is in any way bound by the “compromise” of 2000. She wasn’t a party to it.

She’s come a long way from being the inspiring emblem for tolerance that she truly was when she ran in 2004, when I took up the cudgels for her against the forces of ugly nativism. I’d like to see the national media folks who are SO EXCITED, in their superficial way, that an Indian-American woman might be elected in South Carolina take a moment to consider this. They also might want to watch her cozying up to the neo-Confederates in these video clips. Just something that should go into the calculation…

Note also the HUGE difference in their understanding of the impact of the flag on economic development. Vincent understands that if we want the rest of the world to take us seriously, the flag needs to come down. Nikki thinks the only obstacle to economic development here is the rather sad, ineffective boycott by the NAACP, which is weird on several levels.

No. 1 on the field, No. 1 in the classroom

3 Replies

Two quick items on the National Champion USC Gamecocks baseball team:

First, the picture above of the Gamecock flag flying on the State House dome, taken today by my ADCO colleague Lora Prill with the iPhone 4 of which she is inordinately proud. That’s certainly infinitely better than the flag that used to fly in that third position. This one is one we can all be proud of.

Second, I was talking to my friend Jack Van Loan today, and he mentioned hearing something at the big welcome-home rally for the team yesterday (pictured below, taken by another ADCO colleague): That of the eight teams who went to Omaha for the CWS, the Gamecocks had the highest GPA, at 3.18. (I tried to check this out, and did not find that number. I found that for the most recent semester, though, they had a GPA of 3.07, which ain’t shabby. Maybe the number Jack heard was for the whole year; I don’t know.)

Jack was sufficiently impressed with that that he wrote to the athletic director at his alma mater up in Oregon to say, why doesn’t your team have a GPA like this.

As Jack said “Number One on the field, number one in the classroom.” That’s another reason for South Carolina to be proud.

That huge, gigantic, enormous Confederate Flag rally Saturday

20 Replies

Just now I was cleaning up the storage card on my Blackberry (a.k.a., my Double-Naught Spy Camera), and I ran across this shot I took at the intersection of Main and Gervais at 1:17 p.m. Saturday.

This was the huge rally to support the Confederate flag on the North lawn of the State House.

What rally, you ask? Well, it’s right there in front of you. Look about 50 feet past the monument — see that knot of flags back there? All clumped up together? What you can’t see too well in this low-res photo is that they are all massed together in front of a camera, with the State House steps behind them, trying to make it look on camera as though the lawn is just PACKED with Confederate flag supporters. At least, that’s what it looked like was happening from where I was. Maybe there was something else on that tripod, I don’t know.

Best part of this picture? I think, based on his comments here, that that’s our own Michael Rodgers counterdemonstrating in the foreground (in the red shirt), being confronted by what I think is a counter-counter-demonstrator, but I didn’t stick around to find out, because the light turned green.

In my day, I’ve seen some flag rallies. I’ve seen some pretty big pro-flag gatherings, that fairly filled the space before the steps, with re-enactors and all sorts of pomp — groups numbering three or four thousand. And of course, I’ve seen the historic King Day at the Dome in 2000, when 60,000 gathered to say take it down.

And therefore, I can say without fear of contradiction, this was pathetic.

“We are not Confederates.” See, that was easy

21 Replies

Back on a previous post, Greg Jones said:

On a final note; do any of the German government buildings still fly the Nazi flag?
Just asking.

To which I gladly replied, No, they do NOT, Greg. The Germans decided to draw a line, to say going forward, “We are not Nazis.”

Unfortunately, South Carolina has not yet decided to declare to the world, “We are not Confederates.”

And therein lies the problem.

At this point, the “heritage” crowd will get apoplectic, and scream about how the Confederacy and the war it started is completely different from the Nazis and the war they started, with different causes, different motivations and different kinds of moral culpability.

But the BIGGEST way in which they are different is that the Germans are able to say, “We know our history and will never forget it. But we HAVE learned from it. And we can say unequivocally, that is not what we are about any more.”

And South Carolinians, who should be able to do the same, do not. In fact, the Republicans seeking to become our next governor deliberately, meekly submit themselves to, and do their best to pass, an ideological purity test administered by people who think the exact same conflict over the exact same issues continues today, and who are continuing the struggle.

The boycott will NEVER (and should not) get the flag down

45 Replies

On a previous post, there was an exchange between the two Michaels: Michael Rodgers, who believes passionately as I do that the Confederate flag should not be flying on our State House grounds, and “Michael P.,” who seems to disagree.

The exchange had to do with the NAACP’s boycott of South Carolina over the flag. Michael Rodgers had asserted (in his defense, as but one of five reasons, the other four being perfectly legitimate) that the boycott was a reason to take the flag down. With THAT, I had to respectfully disagree.

We MUST remove the flag from the grounds. But in order to accomplish it, we must first ignore the NAACP’s efforts to FORCE the state to do so, and get others to ignore it as well. It’s a necessary precondition to getting to the point that we do the right thing.

It is my firm belief that the absurd, ineffective NAACP boycott is one of the things keeping the flag up. It plays to the cranky white neo-Confederate’s sense of persecution. And it plays to the genetic predisposition of white South Carolinians (including those who could easily be persuaded to put the flag away otherwise) to never, EVER let anyone MAKE them do something.

I have that genetic predisposition, so I understand it. Allow me to explain: If flying the flag at the State House is the right thing to do, then NO amount of economic pressure should EVER induce us to take it down. Coercion should be resisted at every point along the line. If flying the flag is right, we could keep flying it even if the boycott were successful, even if it starved us.

The thing is, it is NOT right to fly the flag. But since the NAACP gets all the ink and has positioned itself in the mindless media (which is always all about a FIGHT rather than reason) as THE opposition to flying the flag, there is no way most white South Carolinians are going to go along with someone who is trying (however unsuccessfully) to HURT them into making them do its will. That fact, that the NAACP is doing its damnedest to try to hurt SC, obscures the wrongness of the flag for the white majority.

We’re talking about the white MAJORITY instead of the wacky neo-Confederate activists. The majority that can take the flag or leave it alone, that neither weeps for the Lost Cause nor sits up nights fretting about the social injustice of flying the flag in the faces of black people who are also citizens of our state.

The majority, in short, that needs to be won over. These folks don’t want to ally themselves necessarily with the people who play Confederate dress-up, but they don’t want to side with the people trying to hurt SC. And unfortunately, as long as the media continue to paint the issue as one off conflict between the extremes, as a mandatory choice between those options, the average person who just doesn’t want to spend time thinking about it wants to stay out of the whole thing, would prefer it not be brought up at all.

For those people — and we’re talking about at least a plurality of people in this state, defined as having the above-described attitude — there is an all-too-convenient default position: Embrace the “compromise” that in the minds of intellectually lazy people “settled” the issue.

And we’re never going to be able to deal with that problem as long as the NAACP continues to wage its farcical boycott. Unfortunately, I see little chance of the NAACP dropping it. It is an organization that, sadly, has become defined by conflict. Drop the conflict, and too many people in the group’s leadership would feel that they’d lost their raison d’etre.

So we have a HUGE challenge before us — changing the conversation so that it is NOT about those people on the two sides of that conflict caricature.

We need to move South Carolina to a more mature place. In fact, I’ve never seen removing the flag as the goal. I see the flag going away as a sure SIGN that the real goal has been achieved. And the goal is a South Carolina that has decided, in its own collective heart and mind, that it has outgrown such foolishness. That we are bright enough to understand that relics of history — particularly such painful history — belong in museums, and should not be given present life at the center of our public, common existence. And that we are one people, with common interests and respect for one another, having outgrown the desire to wave defiance in each other’s faces.

THAT’S the goal, growing up as a people. Once we do that, the flag will become a footnote of history.

Truer words than Jake’s never spoken in SC

9 Replies

Well, I’ve gotta hand it to Jake Knotts — he stood up as what he is and spared no words about it: He is a redneck. And he was right to be proud of the supposed ephithet. A farmer suntan is a mark of hard work, something of which a simple kind of man should be quietly proud. Or blusteringly proud, depending on his inclinations.

In saying that, he touched on something — a minor, side issue, really — I tried to explain in my column about why we VERY RELUCTANTLY endorsed him against Mark Sanford’s candidate in 2008. The decision nearly killed Cindi Scoppe from sheer mortification, but there was one silver lining in it for me: I had always felt a tiny bit of middle-class guilt over always being against the rednecks (on video poker, on the lottery, on the Flag, and so on), and sometimes doing it in a way that betrayed class snobbery on my part. I figured, endorse this rough, brutish son of the soil against the Club for Growth snobs just once, and for the next 20 years I wouldn’t have to feel that guilt again. Yes, I’m being a little facetious, but also a little bit serious.

Anyway, you can’t deny (unless you are a Republican Party functionary, in which case you will deny it most vehemently) the truth of what Jake said about the hypocrites of his party, who defend Nikki from his brutishness because she’s their gal, and their likely standard-bearer in the fall. Unlike Henry McMaster, Jake will not humbly join that train; he remains what he is, with all the good and bad that entails.

What is Jake right about?

He’s right when he says that if he’d only called Barack Obama a “raghead,” the Lexington County Republican Party would not have indignantly censured him and sought his resignation. Calling the president a “raghead” would be merely a comical slip, compared to the deliberate demonization of the president through such devices as Henry’s “Vultures” ad. If Jake had only been talking about Obama, it would merely have put him on the ragged edge of what is increasingly his party’s mainstream (as the mainstream is more and more infiltrated by Tea Party extremism). Oh, Carol Fowler would have fired off an indignant statement. The Black Caucus may have drafted a fiery resolution that would have died a lonely death on the House floor. But within the Republican Party, only a deafening silence. The righteous fury we’re hearing is coming from advocates for Katrina Shealy and Nikki Haley. It’s coming from the Sanford wing of the party, which is seeing the chance to achieve what it could not in eight years of holding the governor’s office — seize control of the party.

He’s ABSOLUTELY right when he alludes to the uncomfortable truth about the newly politically correct GOP. It deserves to be carved into granite somewhere over at the State House:

“If all of us rednecks leave the Republican Party, the party is going to have one hell of a void.”

Indeed. Where would the S.C. GOP be without rednecks? In the minority, that’s where. That’s assuming they went back to the Democratic Party where they came from.

I was just over at the State House myself, and fell into conversation with Dwight Drake, and I happened to ask him — now that he’s out of it — how he thinks Vincent-vs.-Nikki contest will shake out.

He said that of course one must start with the obvious — that this is a majority Republican state (actually, a plurality-Republican state, but why quibble?) … which caused me to interrupt him to say, “Which it wouldn’t be if all the rednecks left, as Jake said.” And he readily agreed.

Of course, he would agree, being a Democrat. But if Republicans were totally honest, they would agree, too. There is no question that the balance of power in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans as Strom Thurmond and George Wallace led legions of rednecks to abandon the Democratic Party. No, not everyone who switched parties was a redneck; some were mere pragmatists who saw there was a heap of white people in their districts and if they wanted to be elected, they needed to go with the GOP. But that would not be the case if not for the rednecks. However much of the GOP vote may be thus described — 15 percent, 30 percent, whatever — it’s enough to mean there are more Republicans than Democrats.

And while your more high-minded sort of Republican — the kind who like to imagine themselves as the sort who 50 years ago would have been Republican, when in the South it was not much more than a debating society making up a demographic roughly the same size as the Unitarians (the kind who are feeling SO broad-minded because they may have a nonEuro, something that would excite relatively little comment among Dems) — may protest loudly at the notion, on some operational level, consciously or unconsciously, every Republican with the pragmatic sense to win a primary knows this. Occasionally we see overt manifestations of it, such as in 1994 when the GOP unashamedly boosted their primary turnout by including a mock “referendum” question on the Confederate flag. Or when, having taken over the House as a result of that election, the new majority made it one of its first orders of business to put the flying of the flag a matter of state law, so that no mere governor could take it down.

Lord knows that other pathetic gang the Democrats has enough to be embarrassed over, but this is the big dirty secret of the Republican Party. Huh. Some secret. Everybody knows it.

The Republican Party can talk all it wants to about conservatism and “small government,” yadda-yadda, but we all know that it has political control in these parts because of the rednecks in its ranks. That’s just the way it is.

How was YOUR Confederate Memorial Day?

17 Replies

Never got around to writing about this yesterday. I almost put it on my front page, but didn’t. I almost did that because I thought it would be largely glossed over by the MSM, and the thing is… it’s really startling news.

Seriously, yesterday the state that we (most of us, anyway) actually live in observed Confederate Memorial Day. We shut down government offices, people, paying all those thousands of employees to stay home and remember and honor the Confederacy.

In 2010. In America. The country that generation after generation of South Carolinians have bled and died for long after the madness of 1860-65 was behind us. You know, that episode in which our ancestors (mine, anyway; I don’t know about you) rose up and went to war against the United States of America.

Think about it.

Maybe it’s just as well that I didn’t write about it until now, because I know that most readers (whether they work in the public or private sectors) tend to read this blog during working hours — I feel sort of guilty about that, but only a little — and I’d like to ask the state employees among my readers a question:

How did it feel to have the day off for that reason?

Mind you, The State newspaper used to celebrate it, too, but before my day. Or at least, the paper used it as an excuse not to give employees the day off on Yankee Memorial Day. Only during my tenure at the paper did we start taking off that day at the end of May. But to the best of my recollection I never actually had Confederate Memorial Day off.

So I’m curious as to what state employees who were off think about it.

COEXIST or else, y’all

20 Replies

In case you’re wondering about a comment by Kathryn way down back on this post (comment No. 36, I believe), she’s responding to something I wrote on Twitter earlier today:

Driving in Columbia today, I wondered: Do they issue you a “COEXIST” bumper sticker when you move to Shandon?

And to save you having to look, KB said:

They do indeed issue a COEXIST bumper sticker at closing when you buy a Shandon house. Do you get the Confederate flag one when you buy your house in Lexington County or does that cost extra?

You’ll note how that drips with Shandonista scorn. For that matter, my daughter responded thusly on Facebook:

Yeah, but mine’s not on my car since I don’t use fossil fuels, I just stuck it next to my LGBT rainbow and my peace sign on my reusable organic cotton grocery bag.

As a Lexington Countian, let me reply that indeed I do have a Confederate flag. It was given to me by John Courson. It once flew over the State House. But it ain’t a-gonna fly there no more.

Oh, and my wife noted something about Shandon to me just this evening. They might have a lot of nice things we don’t have (such as sidewalks), but there’s one thing they have that we can do without — big ol’ honkin’ cat-sized rats (I added the modifiers) running down the street trying to escape the overburdened sewer system.

Ahem.

O wad some Power the Internet gie us

66 Replies

Folks who routinely travel beyond state lines return shaking their heads at the image of South Carolina that those from elsewhere hold in their heads. You know the drill: Mark Sanford in Argentina, Joe Wilson shouting “You lie!,” the Confederate flag flying on the lawn of our State House, etc.

If only there were some way to tell objectively what image others truly hold of us (and we’ll suspend for a moment the debate over whether we give a damn what others think; we know that many of you don’t, which is one of the sources of our problems). Well, thanks to the magic of the World Wide Web, we do occasionally get an unbiased glimpse.

For instance, I inadvertently had one this morning. On a press release from the University of South Carolina, I saw that a USC study on breast cancer was cited in a story in The Sacramento Bee. Curious to see whether the study played a prominent role in the piece, I followed the link, and saw that the “South Carolina” in the reference to the University was also in hypertext. So I followed it, and found one of those results pages that provided a mishmash of references, from items that are truly about our state to some that merely mention us in a list.

But my eye was drawn to the graphic element on the page, which provided four images under the heading “Sacbee.com photos.” Each image was itself a link to a news item having to do with South Carolina. Here’s what they were:

The first was a locator map that showed the site of a fatal helicopter crash. A tragedy that could have happened anywhere, which doesn’t reflect upon us particularly one way or another.
The next was a sports photo in a garnet-in-black motif, taken by Mary Ann Chastain of our local AP office, leading to a story headlined, “Gamecocks pull Top 5 surprise, beat Ole Miss 16-10.” Wow. Sometimes it seems like all anybody here talks about is Gamecock football. Now it seems that it’s what people elsewhere talk about, too. Huh.
The next photo didn’t look like much of anything — a few scraps of debris scattered on an unremarkable bank of faded red clay. It led to a story out of Anderson about a man who died, alone and penniless, in a tent on the bank of Lake Hartwell. He was described as a “bright but reclusive Civil War buff” who had lost his job at a local museum. Here I was looking for some universal image about our state as a community, and here was a painfully personal tale of a man who died for lack of community. Read into that what you will.
The fourth, alas, was an image all too familiar. I didn’t particularly want to see what it led to, but I followed the link, which was to a letter to the editor of that newspaper. A letter about us, or at least about one of us. And what do folks in California have on their minds when they take up pen to write about one of us? An excerpt: “Similar vitriol and disrespect was the norm from Southern politicians during the years and months leading up to the American Civil War. I fear we may be headed down a similar path, toward disunion, given the tone of our political dialogue since the 2008 national election.”

Sigh.

So, what has the giftie shown you about how others see us?