Category Archives: Confederate flag

South Carolina’s unfinished business

By BRAD WARTHEN

THE COLUMN I’d prefer to be remembered for — my fond reflection on how great it has been to work here with Robert Ariail — ran on Friday. But I hope you’ll forgive me if I close my career at this newspaper with a tough-love piece about unfinished business in South Carolina. Keep in mind, I say these things because I do love my state dearly, and I want the best for it. I always have.

None of these issues will come as a surprise to you. I’ve gone on and on about them for years. These are things we need to do if our state is to reach its potential — to put it more bluntly, to catch up with all those other states whose people are healthier, wealthier and (apparently, given our resistance to reform) wiser than we are.

Each of these items is interwoven with the others; each could be a book (one that I’ve written, on these pages). But here’s the short version:

Improve our schools. Stop talking about nonsensical distractions — such as our governor’s proposal to pay people to pull their children out of our schools — and fix the schools. The only way we will ever raise incomes and overcome the legacy of our economy having been built upon slavery is to make sure everyone has a decent education. And the only possible way to do that is through a statewide system of public schools, with the more affluent areas underwriting the more depressed ones. Public schools are the only ones we the people control, and they have to do whatever we decide they should do. Here are some of the changes we should implement: Pay teachers more for better performance, not for initials after their names; eliminate waste and reduce incompetence by cutting the number of districts from 85 to no more than one per county; empower principals to hire and fire. Let’s stop talking, and get these things done.

Restructure state government. Right now, most of the executive branch is fragmented into scores of tiny islands that answer to no one. Make the executive branch accountable to the elected chief executive, so that our next governor (and here’s another thing for our to-do list — elect a better governor) can pull our limited resources together and get state agencies working together to accomplish the agenda upon which he (or she) is elected. Our current system was designed, intentionally, to resist change. We have to replace it to move forward.

Restructure local government. To give you but one example — the real-world economic community that we informally name “Columbia” consists of more than a dozen municipalities, two counties, seven school districts and an absurd tangle of independent little jurisdictions such as fire, recreation, water and sewer districts. The technical, legal city of Columbia — a mere fraction of the real community — is “governed” in a way that is guaranteed to shield both city administrators and elected officials from accountability. Statewide, we need to make it easier for local governments to consolidate and annex, and get rid of the more than 500 special purpose districts that unnecessarily complicate governance on the local level.

Set local governments free. Let the people elected to run the governments closest to the people run them, without interference by state legislators. The ways that the people who should be minding state business (and you’d think they’d have enough on their plates) meddle in local matters are legion. In some communities they appoint school board members (in Dillon County, a single lawmaker — who happens to be an employee of the school system — determines who will be on the school board). In others, they set school budgets. Collectively, legislators put local governments statewide in a ridiculous bind, writing impossible rules for how and even how much they can tax. Local people know what their communities need; leave them alone.

Let our colleges and universities drive our economy. The presidents of our three research universities have made strides, cooperating to an extraordinary degree. It needs to become the focused policy of this state to use our public institutions of higher education to attract the best and brightest, keep them here and foster research that puts us on the cutting edge of wealth-creating innovation. That means funding the endowed chairs program at twice the level that we did when we were actually investing in it, and restoring support for the schools themselves. We are 40 years behind North Carolina and Georgia. We won’t catch up in my lifetime, but we need to start trying.

Overhaul our tax system. Figure out what state government needs to do, the things that only it can do, then determine what that costs, and devise and implement a fair, balanced and reliable way of funding it. That means scrapping our entire tax structure, and making it serve all of the people of this state, rather than overlapping, competing, narrow interests.

Some of these things are tough; others are less so. But they are all essential to getting our act together in South Carolina. To help us warm up for the harder ones, I suggest we do the following immediately:

Raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax by a dollar, bringing us (almost) to the national average, and saving thousands of young lives.

Remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.

While those last two are easier to implement, they are essential to proving to the world and ourselves that we are serious about building a better South Carolina. The reasons that have been offered not to do those two, simple things are not reasons in any rational sense, but rather outgrowths of the mind-sets that have held us back since 1865.

Which is long enough.

Mr. Warthen was vice president and editorial page editor of The State through Friday. He worked at the paper for 22 years. Find his new blog at bradwarthen.com, or e-mail him at [email protected].

A secessionist Freudian slip

My favorite part of the concurrent resolution described in my last post is this:

Whereas, the several states of the Untied States of America, through
the Constitution and the amendments thereto, constituted a general
government for special purposes and delegated to that government
certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary
right to their own self government. Now, therefore,

Yep, you read that right, and all I did was copy and paste if from the online text of H. 3509. It does indeed say "the Untied States of America."

Hey, if you can't break up the Union one way…

Nullification: Are we going to do it again?

Michael Rodgers over at "Take Down The Flag" is worried that we are, with S.C. House bill 3509, which seeks a concurrent resolution. And you know, you can easily see why he would think that, given such language as this:

Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people
of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves
as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is
not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the
congress assembled; and

I found that "sole and exclusive right" bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty. That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:

TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON
THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.

The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law.

And a certain neo-Confederate sensibility is suggested with the very first example of the sort of action on the part of the federal government that would constitute an abridgement of the Constitution under this resolution:

(1)    establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of
the states comprising the United States of America without the consent
of the legislature of that state;…

As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up: The bill's sponsors are indeed suggesting that this resolution is needed to declare that we won't let Reconstruction be reinstituted.

Because, you know, that Obama is such a clear and present danger. Or something. I guess.

Of course, not everyone is shocked, appalled or amused at the notion of a new nullification movement. Check out this op-ed piece we recently ran online, about Mark Sanford and nullification.

Michael on the Confederate flag

Michael Rodgers, longtime correspondent here and founder of the Take Down The Flag blog, wrote this to me today, and I share it with you:

Dear Brad,
I am writing for two reasons: to point out some common things people often say that are wrong and to describe the stunning lack of leadership from our state government on this issue.

First, the things that are wrong:

1) Our issue in SC is just like the issue in Mississippi or Georgia.  Wrong, because our issue in South Carolina is about the third flag we fly, not about our state flag.
2) The 2/3 vote requirement for this issue is insurmountable.  Wrong for two reasons:

  a. The 2/3 requirement is a legislative hurdle can be taken out of the way with a simple majority (1/2).  Then a simple majority would be able to change rest of the law.
  b. Our state government votes 2/3 all the time when they override Gov. Sanford’s veto, so in fact 2/3 routinely occurs.

3) No one in our state legislature is interested in resolving this issue.  Wrong, because H-3588, a bill to resolve this issue, has seven sponsors. (And as a personal opinion, I think H-3588 completes the compromise).
4) This issue is between flag supporters, who are happy, and flag opponents, who are unhappy.  Wrong for four reasons:

  a. The issue is the FLYING of a third flag from Statehouse grounds, so the camps are flag flying supporters and flag flying opponents.
  b. Flag supporters are unhappy – why else would they get so worked up all the time about this issue?
  c. This issue is between the leaders of our state government, who are happy, and South Carolinians, who are unhappy.
  d. The issue is actually the story (the why!) we tell when we fly or when we don’t fly the flag.  (And as a personal opinion, H-3588 provides a completely consistent clarification of the story of the compromise of 2000).

5) This issue is not worth our time to resolve.  Wrong because this issue is

  a. a defining issue for our state,
  b. tearing our state apart, and
  c. diminishing our state’s stature.

Second, the stunning lack of leadership.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/

Gov. Mark Sanford said, "Everybody has a different perspective. It is a deeply dividing and complex issue that we’re not going to try and open and re-examine. Somebody is going to have to place a tremendous amount of political capital to pry open a compromise. This administration is not going to be doing that."

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to react viscerally.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford’s grouping:  It’s a deeply dividing issue that affects everybody.

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to have enormous confusion as to the reason for this action.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford’s grouping: Everybody has a different perspective.

Our state government is causing deep division that confuses everybody, and what does Gov. Sanford propose to do about it?  Nothing.

Gov. Sanford says that this simple issue is too complex for him to re-examine.  He says what he always says, which is if we’re going to do anything, we’ve got to throw out everything we’ve been given and start fresh — new constitution, new government structure, new approach to property taxes, new approach to education, etc.  No wonder he doesn’t have the political capital to spare for this issue!

I say that we can solve this issue by respecting the compromise and by clarifying the confusion.  Our state government made a compromise in 2000, where they decided a lot of things under a lot of pressure.  By and large, they did a fantastic job, under the circumstances.

One part of this compromise, the flying of the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds, is deeply dividing everybody because everybody has a different perspective on this action. We can focus on solving this last remaining issue because the complex parts of this issue have already been solved.

We can solve this last remaining issue, the simple one, with H-3588.  This bill says that confusions about racism and sovereignty can be resolved by flying our state flag in place of the Confederate flag.  This bill says that confusions about respect for heritage can be resolved by commemorating Confederate Memorial Day every year by flying the Confederate flag at the flagpole where it is now.

H-3588 respects the compromise of 2000 by honoring the Confederate Soldier Monument, Confederate Memorial Day, and the Confederate flag.  H-3588 clarifies the message about why our state honors the Confederate flag: because we respect the service and sacrifice of the Confederate soldiers and not for any other reason.

Because H-3588 respects the compromise and clarifies the confusion, H-3588 completes the compromise.  A leader can easily solve this problem.  Who’s going to step up to the plate?  The governor’s mansion awaits.

Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC

New ‘Take Down The Flag’ blog

Michael Rodgers, a regular correspondent here and probably my most ardent regular blog ally on the cause of getting the Confederate flag off the State House lawn, has started a new blog dedicated to the cause, as he informed me over the weekend:

Dear Brad,
    Hi, how are you?
    What’s new on the Confederate flag?  It’s still flying from the Statehouse grounds. I’ve started protesting at the Statehouse when I can, and I now have a blog about the issue (Would you please add me to your blogroll?):

Take Down The Flag

    My state Representative Bill Cotty said that we have a "leadership in the House and Senate that will prevent the issue from seeing the light of day before we adjourn in June." My state Senator Joel Lourie agreed with your sense from the business community that they have no "appetite" for doing anything on this issue. I find that strange since Jim Micali of Michelin is the Chairman of the SC Chamber of Commerce. Surely he would want something done, but he’s retiring soon, so who knows?
    Take care and keep in touch.  Thank you.

                        Regards,

                        Michael Rodgers

Nothing new, I had to tell him. As y’all may have noticed, I’ve been working pretty much around the clock on presidential politics, and am just about to start paying attention again to S.C. issues (I had other folks doing that up to now), now that we’ve chased all those candidates out of the state.

Now I’m having to meet with all those folks I’ve been putting off for the past couple of months, on a wide variety of issues. The meeting with Vincent Sheheen was one of those long-delayed ones. I also have outstanding meeting requests from local hospitals, the state Department of Juvenile Justice, and … well, all sorts of issues.

The flag will certainly return in this space. Until it does, thank you, Michael, for keeping the conversation going.

P.S. Just now, going through e-mail from a different account (my published one), I see this form e-mail that Michael sent out to all potentially interested parties. As further elaboration on what he’s trying to do, I include the text of that as well:

Dear Brad Warthen,
    Hello, how are you?  I’m writing to you because I see that you’ve posted on your blog in support of taking down the flag.  I’ve written emails to people who are interested in joining your South Carolina Association for the Advancement of All People, or whatever it ends up being called.
    I’ve started a blog to encourage action to take down the flag.  I hope that we can get a group to organize and take action.  I’m inviting you to participate.  Please, let’s work together to take down the flag. http://takedowntheflag.wordpress.com/
    I’m also writing to remind you of the bill (H-3588) to take down the flag.  The bill is sponsored by Representatives Alexander, Hart, Rutherford, and Sellers, and it is currently stuck in the Judiciary Committee of the House. 
    Please write your State Representative and State Senator to ask them to get the bill to the floors and on to Governor Sanford for his signature.  You can read the bill and find out who your legislators are here (choose “quick search” for bill 3588 and choose “find your legislator”): http://www.scstatehouse.net/
    Please spread the word about H-3588.  I look forward to hearing from you and working with you.  We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are right and we will prevail.
    Thank you.

With Kindest Regards,

Michael Rodgers

Living down our history

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MY GRANDMOTHER used to tell a story about when she was a very little girl living in the Washington area.
    Her family was from South Carolina. Her father was an attorney working for the federal government. One of their neighbors was a U.S. senator from South Carolina. When her parents learned that she had visited the senator in his garden, sitting on his lap and begging for a peek under his eye patch, they were shocked and appalled.
    The senator was “Pitchfork Ben” Tillman, the state’s former governor, and a vehement advocate of lynching who had participated in the murders of black South Carolinians as a “Red Shirt” vigilante.
    Grandma’s people were of a very different political persuasion, as were of the founders of this newspaper, which was established for the express purpose of fighting the Tillman machine. That’s a second personal connection for me, and one of which I’m proud: We still fight the things that race-baiter stood for.
    Ben Tillman launched his rise to power with a fiery speech in Bennettsville, the town where I was born. But we’ve come a long way since then. Two very different politicians have spoken in Bennettsville in recent days.
    In November, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke there, outlining her plan “to cut the dropout rate among minority students in half and help a new generation of Americans pursue their dreams.”
    John Edwards was there Wednesday. Tillman was a populist; John Edwards is a populist. But there the resemblance ends. Former Sen. Edwards’ advocacy for the poor helped endear him to black voters in South Carolina in 2004, propelling him to victory in that year’s primary here. His appearance in B’ville was in connection with his attempt to repeat that achievement.
    So my hometown and my home state have come a long way in the past century or so, at least with regard to the intersection of race and politics.
    Not far enough, of course. I don’t just say that because a statue honoring Tillman still stands on the State House grounds, a few yards from where the Confederate flag still flies.
    On the day that this newspaper endorsed Barack Obama, our publisher’s assistant passed on a phone message from a reader who was livid because we are “supporting a black man for president of the United States.” He continued: “I am ashamed that we’ve got a newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina, one of the best cities in America, and yet we’ve got a black operation supporting black candidates…. I am disappointed and upset that we’ve got a black newspaper right here in the city of Columbia.”
    How many white South Carolinians still think that way? Too many, if there’s only one of them. But such people stand out and are worth mentioning because we have come so far, and increasingly, people who think the way that caller does are the exception, not the rule.
    And truth be told, South Carolina is not the only part of these United States where you can still find folks whose minds are all twisted up over race.
    As I noted, Mr. Edwards did very well among black voters in 2004, but not this time. Several months ago, Sen. Clinton seemed to be the heir to that support. The wife of the “first black president” had lined up a lot of African-American community leaders, which was a big part of why she commanded an overwhelming lead in S.C. polls.
    But in the last few weeks, something happened. Sen. Obama won in Iowa, an overwhelmingly white state, and black South Carolinians began to believe he had a chance, and that a vote for Obama would not be “wasted.” This week, according to pollster John Zogby, he’s had the backing of between 56 and 65 percent of black voters, while Sen. Clinton can only claim at most 18 percent of that demographic.
    And as the days wear down to what is an almost-certain Obama victory in South Carolina, Sen. Clinton has gone on to spend most of her time campaigning elsewhere, leaving her husband behind to bloody Obama as much as he can.
    So it is that I would expect the Clinton campaign to say, after Saturday, that she didn’t really try to win here. But there’s another narrative that could emerge: Sure, he won South Carolina, but so did Jesse Jackson — just because of the huge black vote there. To win in November, Democrats need a candidate with wider appeal, right?
    Maybe that won’t happen. It would be outrageous if it did. But those with an outrageous way of looking at politics see it as a possibility. Dick Morris — the former Clinton ally (but now a relentless critic), the master of triangulation — wrote in The New York Post this week: “Obama’s South Carolina victory will be hailed as proof that he won the African-American vote. Such block voting will trigger the white backlash Sen. Clinton needs to win.”
    As a South Carolinian who’s proud of how far my state has come, I want to say right now, well ahead of time: As Joe Biden got himself in trouble for saying, and as Iowa voters confirmed, Barack Obama is no Jesse Jackson. Nor is he Bill Clinton, or John Edwards, or anybody else. He’s just Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is the best-qualified Democrat seeking the presidency of the United States.
    And no one should dismiss South Carolinians for being wise enough to see that.

Huckabee on the Confederate flag

No time to get into this right now — I’m way behind on my Sunday column — but just to let you know, Mike Huckabee is now apparently bringing up the Confederate flag at campaign events, and here’s what he’s saying:

MYRTLE BEACH, South Carolina (CNN) – Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told South Carolina voters Thursday that the government had no business making decisions over the Confederate flag.
    "You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee said at a Myrtle Beach campaign event. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole, that’s what we’d do."
    Later, in Florence, he repeated the remarks. "I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and tells us what to do, it doesn’t matter what it is, tell us how to run our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our flag — you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole."

The NAACP’s selective boycott

A reader sends this question today via e-mail:

My wife and I spent some time last week in Montgomery, Al, where our newly married son and wife reside.  We toured downtown Montgomery (in the throes of being "reinvigorated") and the State Capitol.  I was interested to see  confederate flags prominently displayed on the grounds of the Capitol.  Not just one flag, but the four major flags of the confederacy, includignthe battle flag.  This was not some subtle showing of the flags as they were all on tall flagpoles being very prominently displayed.  I became curious as to the NAACP stance to this but my research fails to find any reaction.  I wonder why SC is being boycotted but not Alabama?  Any ideas?

This is the way I understand it: The South Carolina element within the NAACP has a lot of pull with the national organization. A key link is the Rev. Nelson B. Rivers III. Basically, S.C. is targeted because that’s the way the South Carolina NAACP leadership wants it. It has nothing to do with S.C. being worse, or special, in any objective sense.

Consider:

If I were the NAACP, and I were inclined to boycott, I’d be boycotting Mississippi. But that’s just me.

Making friends, of a sort

I received this missive today, and while it’s hardly a welcome development to have someone turn his back on you, he did it in a civil way:

Mr. Warthen,
       This will be my last note to your newspaper. We’re not getting anywhere so I will bow out.
       I do thank you for communicating . . . . That is more than some newspaper folk do and even if we disagree, that’s our right, OK?

Thanks,
Irvin Shuler

I was just about to write back and say, sure, that’s cool; different strokes and all that … when I decided, just on a whim, to see what this correspondent had most recently had to say to me. I found that among my yet-unread e-mail was one he sent yesterday:

Why would "you" not want to talk about those n_____s brought across the
Atlantic by the damn yankee, money gruggers?    Were they "your" ancestors
and just how much did YOUR family make off of us?????? AGAIN ?????
Please,
Mr. Warthen……just get the hell out of our state….yes, b___h, leave this
state and
YOUR
State Paper should be forgotten.
Remember……there was a "State Paper"
editor once that pushed a little too far and
got…..well….just what he
deserved.     He spoke against Southern Folk and got just what he
deserved.    He was killed………thank goodness !!!!

Irvin
Shuler……………..NEVER ANOTHER APPOMATTOX   !!!!!

You will now, no doubt, remember this gentleman from previous correspondence.

At least, as we parted, he was in a better mood. That’s something.

Do they really think that’s a good point?

As I’ve noted before, many of the flag defenders think they are terribly insightful students of history, and that the rest of us are just showing our ignorance in saying that flying it on our State House grounds is stupid and wrong.

Welcome to the Bizarro World.

Anyway, there’s this one guy who keeps writing to me, and making the terribly profound — to him — point that there were American flags flying over some of the slave ships. To him, and the thousands of others who say this with a big, triumphant air — this is a major GOTCHA! Apparently, it’s supposed to cancel out the fact that South Carolina and the other Confederate states seceded in order to preserve slavery.

Seriously. That’s what these people seem to think. Human rationalization is a wonderful thing, is it not?

Anyway, he writes and says,

Warthen,
       Would you please write a column and explain that NO slave was brought to
America under our Confederate Flags but every one, every-one was brought over
under the glorious stars-and-stripes of that time……the stars-and stripes of that
time was and is still my enemy, the union flag….. The flag of that time…………
1860-1865 and on through what you yankees call reconstruction, which was one
hell-of-a-mess for the good folks of the South.

Irvin Shuler                     NEVER ANOTHER APPOMATTOX !!!

So I make the mistake of engaging with him to ask, what on Earth is new about the fact that the slave trade was banned well before 1860? He writes back,

WARTHEN,
There is nothing new in that but please let all "your" reades know they,
those captured overseas and brought here to be sold as slaves, were
brought here on ships flying the damn "stars and stripes" of the glorious
union (of-that-time) and none, not even one, was brought to this country
under the Flag(s) of the Confederacy.      Why can’t you print this ????
Are you scared to print the truth…..afraid of Hillary or that damn Osama
Obama,
whatever he is ?
Afraid you’ll have to back it up and can’t ……..I understand…….you’ve
been lying to your readers all along.      
Thank goodness for those like "Pitchfork Ben Tillman" and Me.

Irvin Shuler

Then, I write back,

Why do you think it’s important that the slave trade preceded secession? Of course, it would have to. There would have been no slaves to fight over, otherwise.

The cessation of the slave trade was part of the long, slow movement toward getting rid of slavery. A generation after it ended, abolitionists had set their sights on the next target — the freedom of those who were already here. After Lincoln, who was their candidate (despite his attempts to reassure Southern voters), won the election, South Carolina — which since the battles over the Constitution in the 1780s had been one of the two most vehement defenders of the institution in the Congress — seceded rather than lose those slaves. Other states followed.

This is simple, basic history that everyone knows. Tell you what — I’ll put this on my blog and we’ll see if there was anyone out there who didn’t know it, or who thinks it means what you seem to think it does.

You know what else? Those ships all had sails! So let’s blame the wind for slavery! Only the advent of steamships led to their freedom. That makes about as much sense as what you’re saying about flags.

Halfway through, I chide myself for having wasted so much time, and reflect that it won’t be so bad if I post it on my blog. Which is why I told him I would.

We know how to do that, Senator

Lee Bandy’s column today, ends with this quote from John McCain on the subject I dealt with earlier in the week:

    Asked about the banner Tuesday, McCain said he thought the issue was resolved when the flag was removed from atop the Capitol dome and placed next to a Confederate Soldier Monument.
    “This issue needs to be put to rest,” he said to loud applause.

There’s only one way this issue will be "put to rest." And we all know what way that is, don’t we, folks?

John McCain is wrong about ONE thing…

John McCain is wrong about one issue that is of any personal importance to me: the Confederate flag. And of course the moderator in last night’s debate asked him, and only him, about it. That’s fitting, since a moderator should probe a candidate’s weak points in trying to get at the truth.

Fortunately for McCain — in terms of my vote, anyway — I don’t consider anyone’s position on that issue to be a qualification for the job of president of the United States. In fact, I’d prefer that presidential candidates stay out of the debate altogether.

Among the Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani has the right answer — to the extent that any non-South Carolinian could have the "right" answer. He says it’s a matter for South Carolinians to decide.

Indeed it is that and only that. That’s why I disagree so strongly with the NAACP’s approach — trying (without appreciable success, I might add) to get the rest of the world to FORCE the flag down by hurting South Carolina economically. Even if such a strategy worked — which it can’t, believe me — nothing would be accomplished. You’d still be left with a state perceived — and perceiving itself, sullenly, resentfully — as a place that WANTS to fly the flag, but has been forced not to.

I don’t care what happens to a piece of cloth. I live in a state that has profound political barriers to getting its act together and catching up to the rest of the country in terms of health, wealth, educational attainment, public safety, what have you. The attitudes that keep us from working together to address those issues meaningfully are closely related to the attitudes that keep that flag flying.

Only if we come together and say, "That’s not who we are anymore; we’re better than that," will we ever move forward as a people.

Sure, it would make me feel all warm and fuzzy to hear everybody — particularly people I like, such as John McCain — echoing my own personal attitudes on this and every other important issue. But it wouldn’t accomplish anything. In fact, on this issue outside voices can probably only make things worse, not better. That’s because of the xenophobia that is a corollary of the mentality that keeps the flag flying. You’ve seen the bumper stickers: "We don’t CARE how you did it up North."

John McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and wrestled too hard, ending up here, there, and all over the mat on the issue. It
was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.

I don’t mean that in a "go away and shut up, John" sense. But it has nothing to do with being president of the United States. Whatever opinion
he might have on that South Carolina matter should have no impact either on what we do about the flag, or on
whether he should be nominated and elected to the White House.

On issues that do have a bearing as to whether he should be
president, I find him to be far and away the best — among either
party’s candidates. For now.

I wrote the above thoughts, in somewhat sketchier form, in response to a comment on a previous post. Here’s how one of my more thoughtful correspondents replied:

Brad,

I’m struck by your post above re: McCain and the flag

“McCain’s problem is that he actually wrestled with the issue, and
it was an issue he did not and probably never will understand. He
shouldn’t have wrestled with it. It’s none of his business.”

I find it puzzling that you would use Steve Spurrier’s uninvited
opinion on the flag as the impetus for a barrage of editorials but then
give the presidential candidates a pass on the issue.

Part of the point of primary politics is for voters to obtain a
close look at the candidates and have them take positions on local
issues. It is a very useful way to measure them, regardless of whether
the issue will ever come to them for a decision. Some of the national
issues will likely never come to them for a decision either-for
example, if the next president doesn’t appoint a Supreme Court justice,
it’s unlikely his or her opinion on abortion will have any impact.

You expect a president to have the wherewithal and decisiveness to
respond to another 9/11 attack but don’t feel they can be bothered to
be decisive about one of the most controversial issues in SC. Every
candidate should have a specific opinion (not just “it’s a state
matter”). McCain’s courage faltered in 2000 on this issue.
Unfortunately, it appears to be failing him again; I doubt he
personally believes that the flag should be anywhere on the State House
grounds given how much this issue pricked his conscience 8 years ago.
But he’s playing it safe in 2008, one of the reasons he’s a less
attractive candidate this time around.

Your willingness to accept McCain’s timidity about the flag makes me question your ability to view him objectively.

Posted by: Paul DeMarco | May 16, 2007 1:52:53 PM

As I said, Paul, Sen. McCain is clearly wrong on the issue.

As I also said, I don’t ask any candidate for president for his or her opinion about the flag. It’s irrelevant.

There are things he’s wrong about that ARE relevant — such as his willingness to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. That I have a problem with, as a voter considering who should be the next president. But I have greater problems on such relevant issues with every other candidate.

Spurrier lives in South Carolina, and is someone who — unfortunately, given that I think football is one of the least important things in the world — a lot of people in South Carolina listen to. He, like the 4 million other people in this state, has a right and an obligation to speak out as to what he wants our elected representatives to put on our State House lawn.

His comments were the first from a high-profile South Carolinian on the issue since everybody stopped talking about it in 2000. I mean, other than South Carolinians who are leaders in a NATIONAL organization — an organization which, because it was trying to use the outside world to coerce South Carolina into doing something, is the main obstacle to South Carolinians growing up on their own and putting this issue behind them.

Spurrier provided an opportunity to discuss this in another context. It was, and remains, my great hope that in the coming months, other prominent South Carolinians who are NOT trying to use a national boycott to force something that needs to happen voluntarily. If it doesn’t happen voluntarily, if South Carolina does not evolve to the point that collectively, we WANT to do this voluntarily, then absolutely nothing of value will be achieved.

Comments from Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd or John McCain are simply not a part of that discussion, but instead a distraction. The only reason they are asked about such things is because journalists on deadline are not a terribly reflective lot. They think, "They’re in South Carolina, and this is a controversial issue in South Carolina." It never occurs to them that it’s not an issue that has anything to do with the presidency. (This is an issue I’ve written about in other contexts — it’s now become a standard mindless ritual in the media to ask the president to comment on everything, from his underwear to the Columbine shootings, when such things have nothing at all to do with the president’s duties or responsibilities.)

As for abortion — well that IS a more relevant presidential issue than the flag, but only because the flag isn’t a presidential issue at all. As you say, Paul, the president’s only involvement with abortion is nominating Supreme Court justices, because of Roe. (If NOT for Roe, it would be a more legitimate political issue, and that is what it should be. The Court should never have removed it from the political branches.)

That said, I will not cast my own vote exclusively according to a candidate’s position on abortion. It will be one of many things I consider in making my decision about a candidate, but the candidate I choose could end up being someone who disagrees with me on that one issue.

I hope at this point to vote for McCain, with whom I happen to agree on the abortion issue, among many other issues.

But among the Republicans, my distant second choice would be Giuliani. Suppose McCain is no longer in the race when the primaries roll around. I could see looking to Giuliani instead. His stance on abortion would not prevent that.

Since THAT, which is more relevant to the job, would not deter me, why would the Confederate flag issue? As I say, I’m more likely to be bothered by the tax cut stance. I don’t feel passionately about taxes the way I do about the flag, but it IS actually relevant.

I would assert that this is the objective way to look at things — reasoning them out, as opposed to going on the basis of mere passion. I could certainly be wrong about that, of course, since an individual is probably the least disinterested judge on the matter of whether he is disinterested.

Would I like it more if McCain were "right" about the flag (and "right" is saying what Giuliani says, which is that it’s a South Carolina matter)? Absolutely. Immensely. But once more, that’s more about how it would FEEL, rather than about the conclusions I reach when I THINK about candidates and try to choose between them.

How was your Confederate Memorial Day?

S.C. political culture
keeps flag up,
DOT unreformed

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
RECENTLY, I said state lawmakers refuse to find the time to deal with the Confederate flag’s implications for our state.
    I was wrong. They’ve saved so much time by not reforming the Department of Transportation this session that they managed to take off a whole day Thursday to honor the flag and all that it stands for. They also paid state employees several million dollars to do the same.
    They know just what they’re doing. They don’t declare state holidays for every failed insurrection that comes along. There’s no Stono Rebellion Day, for instance. That was when some black South Carolina slaves rose up violently to assert their right to live as they chose, and lots of people died horribly, and the rebels suffered much and gained nothing. Whereas the War Between the States was when a bunch of white South Carolina slave owners rose up violently to… OK, well, the rest of it’s just the same.
    But you see, we have a Confederate Memorial Day holiday because the General Assembly had to do something for white people after it gave black folks Martin Luther King Day.
    It was a tradeoff. Our leaders think in those terms. Something for you people in exchange for something for us people. The idea that Martin Luther King might be worth a nod from all of us just didn’t wash.
    The Legislature’s refusal to reform the Department of Transportation is actually related. That agency is governed according to the principle of something for you people in exchange for something for us people, leaving out the needs of the state as a whole.
    The power lies in the Transportation Commission. The governor appoints the chairman; the other members are chosen by legislators. Not by the Legislature as a whole: Each member represents a congressional district, and only the legislators who live in that district have a say in choosing that commissioner. Therefore the people in a position to set priorities on road-building have parochial notions of what roads need to be built — all except the chairman, who can’t vote unless there’s a tie.
So how are priorities set? Something for you people in exchange for something for us people — the balancing of narrow interests, rather than a statewide strategy.
    Lawmakers as a whole aren’t even seriously considering giving up that commission. Even the idea of giving greater power over the commission to the governor — who in almost any other state would be running that executive agency outright — is utterly shocking to some of the most powerful legislative leaders.
    “This Senate would rue the day that you turn that billion-dollar agency over to one person,” said Sen. John Land, who represents a rural district.
    The scandal at the Transportation Department didn’t arise from former Director Elizabeth Mabry being a bad administrator. She was a bad administrator, but she was part of a system. A job for your relative, commissioner, in return for indulging the way I run my fiefdom ….
    Something for you in exchange for something for me. It didn’t even have to be stated.
    When I say the “Legislature” is like this, it doesn’t apply to all lawmakers — just to the decisions they make collectively.
    There are some who want to fix the agency, and others who want to take down the Confederate flag. But the status quo runs right over them without breaking stride.
    Sen. John Courson proposed to do away with the commission and put the governor in charge. He got support, but not enough; the idea was dropped.
    After I wrote about “the Legislature” not wanting to talk about the flag recently, Rep. Chris Hart called to say he wants to talk about it, and that he and Reps. Todd Rutherford, Bakari Sellers and Terry Alexander have a bill that would take the flag down — H.3588. But it’s sat in committee since Feb. 27.
    My grand unifying theory is not a simple matter of good guys and bad guys. Sen. Glenn McConnell is a champion of the monument for you, flag for me system. But he’s pushing the plan to give the governor more say over the Transportation Department.
    What  matters is how it comes out, after everybody votes. This legislative session will end soon. Significant reform of the Transportation Department is looking doubtful, while action on the flag is politically impossible.
    Rep. Rutherford has some hope for next year on the flag, especially after recent comments from football coach Steve Spurrier, and the protest by United Methodist clergy. If that blossoms into a movement of the breadth of the one that moved the flag in 2000, H.3588 could have a chance.
    But he warns that if it does start to gain support, a moribund proposal to declare a Confederate Heritage Month will likely be revived. Something for you people, something for us people.
    The Transportation Department won’t be reformed until the culture changes, until the notion that there is such a thing as statewide priorities replaces the traditional balancing of the interests of narrow constituencies.
    The flag won’t come down unconditionally until the notion sinks in that it’s not about whether your ancestors were slaves, or slaveholders, or neither. This is the 21st century, and the Confederacy hasn’t existed since 1865. “I’m not trying to disrespect anybody’s heritage,” Rep. Rutherford said on Confederate Memorial Day. “It just shouldn’t be there.”
    That’s true no matter who your kinfolk were, and no matter what day it is in the year 2007.

Don’t think unkindly of our lawmakers

You may have gotten the unflattering impression that our state lawmakers refuse to find the time to deal with the Confederate flag and its implications for our state.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and I hereby apologize for having created such a scurrilous illusion.

I had intended to go over and check out the activities at the Statehouse this morning, and didn’t get away before midday. At about that time a colleague returned from that august edifice, and I asked her what was going on this afternoon, thinking I might still go.

"They’re going home," she said, looking at me rather blankly.

But this is Wednesday, I protested. They don’t go home until tomorrow.

"Tomorrow is Confederate Memorial Day," she reminded me.

Our lawmakers aren’t too busy for the flag at all, you see. They’ve been so efficient in addressing all of our state’s legitimate needs that they could take off the whole day in order to honor the flag and all that it stands for. And, oh yes, pay all those thousands of state employees not to work tomorrow, either.

So don’t think they don’t have their priorities straight or anything.

Methodist ministers

We were way busy last week and I failed to comment on this, but it’s never too late on a 45-year issue.

I was pleased to hear from Methodist preacher friend that he and some fellow clergy were going to pray at the Confederate flagpole, with the object of their prayers being much the same as mine:

By RODDIE A. BURRIS
[email protected]
    A group of 30 to 40 people prayed
and held Communion Tuesday on the State House
grounds in protest of the
Confederate flag flying there.
    The group, led by ministers from area United Methodist churches, had Communion at the State House’s African-American monument.Methodist_preachers
    Afterward,
they turned and marched 150 yards to the Confederate Soldier’s
Monument. There, the group prayed, asking that the flag be removed from
State House grounds…
    “We hope that now people will start
bringing their churches down here and having service,” said the Rev.
John Wesley Culp, pastor of Virginia Wingard Memorial United Methodist
Church, on Broad River Road.

Randy and I need to bring this idea up to our pastor. Whaddaya think, Randy? With a Legislature like ours ("The protest drew little attention inside the State House as legislators
began their six-week countdown to the end of the 2007 session"), I think it would be wise for people of good will to appeal to the Higher Power.

In any case, this development was encouraging, because it was the first step beyond Coach Spurrier’s comments, in terms of assembling a coalition of mainstream forces to press our lawmakers to do the right thing — however reluctant they are even to speak of it.

I didn’t call Joe Darby names

Just FYI, I never called the Rev. Joe Darby an extremist, or anything else unpleasant. I like Joe Darby. Nevertheless, he felt obliged to stick up for himself on our op-ed page today, to wit:


The State
’s editorial pages have been filled in recent weeks with
reactions to coach Steve Spurrier’s welcome comments on the Confederate
flag. They included columns by Brad Warthen, who supported the flag’s
removal but labeled the NAACP’s approach on the flag extreme, and Sen.
Glenn McConnell, who made the case for standing by the present flag
location and moving on.

Both
gentlemen merit a response, and I offer it as a former first vice
president of the South Carolina NAACP and one of those who drafted the
resolution for the NAACP’s interstate tourism sanctions.

It’s
your turn first, Brad — hope you don’t mind an extremist using your
first name. I’d remind you that school desegregation, voting rights and
civil rights laws didn’t just spring into being because America’s
powers that be suddenly said, “Hey, I see something unjust, let’s fix
it!” We acted as a nation in the 1960s only when organizations like the
NAACP took aggressive action, ranging from lawsuits to civil
disobedience, to demand equity. They weren’t called “extremists” back
then, but “outside agitators.” History shows that we only change and do
the right thing when we’re compelled to act and have no choice, and
that’s true in the case of the Confederate flag.

Well, I haven’t used the word "extremist" lately in this context, but I think this is what he was referring to:

… But up to now, we might as well have been shouting at a stone wall.
The NAACP and its opponents were the only ones out there making any
news on the subject, largely because news coverage is attracted,
unfortunately, to conflict.

The extremes did such a great job of
hijacking this issue, it’s like they got together and worked it out
ahead of time between them. The rest of us are trapped in this comedy
of the absurd, with the entire country laughing at us. (Have you ever
heard of anything more pathetic than the city of Columbia spending
$15,000 in a ridiculously doomed effort to get people covering the
presidential primaries here to ignore the flag? We make ourselves into
a freak show, and we think they’re going to ignore it? Come on!)

By the way, this is our editorial position on the NAACP’s stance, in case you missed it.

There’s nothing extreme about the NAACP’s position on the flag. But its approach to doing something about it polarizes the issue in a way that makes any kind of positive action extremely unlikely.

Anyway, I would never want to see the flag come down because our state felt FORCED to do it, even if that were possible. If we don’t grow to the point that we are unified in WANTING to take it down, then nothing is really accomplished.

People keep saying that there are many more important issues to be writing about — education, economic development, etc. To which I can only say, Duh. Why do you think we write about those things, day in and day out?

But the flag is worth writing about, too, because the very attitudes and detachment from reality that keep it up there also keep us from dealing meaningfully with the challenges that keep us last where we should be first. But we have to make the decision to move beyond that self-destructive mindset ourselves. Nobody can make us do it; that’s a logical contradiction.

Rev. Darby compares the NAACP’s coercive posture on the flag (or rather, attempted coercive posture, since the boycott is a bust) to marches and boycotts back in the civil rights era, when it was necessary to make courageous stands against laws that denied black people the right to vote, the right to a good job, a right to be treated equally.

But there’s a big difference. When you have a concrete obstacle such as a law that says if your skin is this color, you can’t cross this line, then whatever means you use to remove that law, you’ve had a positive effect. A barrier removed is a barrier removed, however you get there.

But the flag itself, as a concrete object, doesn’t matter. It is, as some who want to dismiss the issue, just a piece of cloth. This is about the attitude that keeps the flag flying. We have to change that. If you get rid of the flag and the attitude is unchanged, all you’ve done is hide the attitude, which will continue to poison and confound all our best efforts to achieve consensus on addressing education, economic development, public health, etc.

Personally, I believe most of us have indeed grown beyond that attitude. But our Legislature won’t recognize that. Hence my speaking up on the flag, and encouraging others to do the same — somebody besides the obsessed types who always speak up. You know, the extremists.

Why don’t these guys just leave a comment?

Just to put it where it should be — on the blog — I share this bit of fan e-mail:

 
Mr. Warthen
 
First, I suggest you seek
professional help and get your Nazi fetish fixed. Listening to you whine about
how you are so pi**ed off because you weren’t born in time to go fight them
makes me want to gag. http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/04/column_on_the_n.html
 
The WWII generation accomplished the
defeat of the Nazis without the likes of you – in short, they didn’t need you
and they probably wouldn’t have wanted you either. You, running around the
Nazi’s demonstration, snapping photos, etc, gave them exactly what they were
looking for – ATTENTION! Congratulations on helping them achieve their own
version of “15 minutes of fame”.
 
Second – if you are implying, and I
believe, like many others of your ilk, you are, that the Confederacy was
anything like Nazi Germany, then use your pen and superior historical intellect
to explain EXACLTY how this is so. If you can’t, (and I know you can’t), then
shut up, because, from where I sit, a country which tells its opponent and the
world, “All we want is to be left alone”, is a far cry from one which sends its
armies across its borders and steamrolls over anyone who gets in their way. Oh,
by the way, in looking at the photos of the Nazis demonstrating, I do see a
confederate flag. But, I also see at least one 50-star
U.S. flag.
 
Third – in reading one of your other
blog entries, I see you once again lambasted the SCV because they issued a press
release condemning the Nazi’s use of the Confederate flag.
Of course, had the SCV remained
silent, you would have condemned them for doing so anyway. I guess it’s a case
of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”, right? I think it’s quite clear
from all your ranting that you simply want them and others like them to sit
down, shut up or go away.
 
But I had to laugh when you got so
upset about the guy who said he’d like to see you stuck in prison with those
whom you seek to ingratiate. http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/04/confederate_fla.html
 
Your “Oh I’m so offended” attitude,
coupled with your moaning about the lack of civility on your blog and in the
world in general, were hysterical. I have seen and heard many Confederate flag
critics, but I have to say, you are one of the most over-the-top, intolerant
people I’ve ever encountered. Your intolerance of those who don’t share your
opinion, coupled with your reaction to how other people treat you, remind me of
the schoolyard bully who just got popped in the nose and is now whining and
crying about getting picked on. Face it, you reap what you sow.
 
Fourth: Stop yapping about how the
flag “offends”. There is no law anywhere which states that someone else’s
history must be hidden in order to assuage the feelings of others. If you know
where such a thing is written, please point it out. And in case you haven’t
noticed, blacks have made the South their location of choice since the end of
the war, and left to their own devices, will, more often than not, get along
just fine with their fellow Southern white brethren. http://www.petersburgexpress.com/Pocahontas.html
 
Having read a lot of history from
original sources as well as books, I’m going to give you a history lesson on the
very subject you brought up. The Lt. Colonel was quite right, as are all the
others who write to you to tell you that you don’t know squat about history, and
that applies doubly to the issue of black support of the Confederacy. Note, I
did not say “black soldiers”, because in the technical sense at least, there
were few of those. However, if you’d like to read the stories of a couple of
them, then have a look:
 
 
 
Most so-called “black Confederates”
were in support roles, the most frequent of these roles being the body servant.
While not officially mustered in as soldiers, their roles were often blurred,
and their history is dotted with acts of heroism, and sometimes even combat. To
my knowledge, I have yet to hear of an instance of a white confederate soldier
complaining about a body servant going into combat.
 
You dare compare these men to Poles
serving in the German army? You’re not fit to shine their boots Mr. Warthog. And
unlike the Poles in the German army, these men had something to say about their
war experiences, many of them speaking of their experiences in a positive
way:
 
 
And in the post war period, when the
Confederate veterans had their reunions, these black men were always welcomed by
their white comrades:
 
 
I know it’s convenient for you and
others of your ilk to believe that the slaves waited patiently for their blue
clad liberators, but the fact of the matter is, if you read the words of many
slaves themselves, you’ll find that this was not always so. Irregardless of your
inability to see the world of the 1860s within the context of its time (and not
your time), the words of the slaves are in print for anyone to read. All you
have to do is spend 9 months reading “The Slave Narratives” : http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month11.phtml
 
 
And: http://www.georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month13.phtml
– This is one story you definitely should read, especially since you are a
Southerner who had several ancestors in the conflict and since you seem so
intent on selling them down the river in front of the world, essentially, I
think, to try and prove what an enlightened guy you are. You could learn a lot
from this man!
 
Some “black Confederates” were as
over the top as their white Southern comrades:
 
Others were simply doing the best
they could in this life:
 
No, they were nothing like the Slavs
who served in the German army. I know that thought makes it easy for you to
dismiss them, but it simply isn’t so. Most Southerners, black as well as white,
have always had a strong love of home and family. Life may not have been
perfect, but the people you know are often times more reliable than the people
you don’t know, and the Union army was not always on its best behavior,
especially when it came to Southern blacks. Plenty of motivation here for a
slave to take the Southern side, I’d say:
 
 
 
 
 
Or how about this – from the history
of your own state?
 
“We have been told of successful
outrages of this unmentionable character being practiced upon women dwelling in
the suburbs. Many are understood to have taken place in remote country
settlements and two cases are described where young negresses were brutally
forced by the wretches and afterwards murdered – one of them being thrust, when
half dead, head down, into a mud puddle, and there held until she was
suffocated. But this must suffice. The shocking details should not now be made,
but that we need, for the sake of truth and humanity, to put on record, in the
fullest types and columns, the horrid deeds of these marauders upon all that is
pure and precisions – all that is sweet and innocent – all that is good, gentle,
gracious, dear and enobling – within the regards of white and Christian
civilization. And yet we should grossly err if, while showing forbearance of the
Yankees in respect to our white women, we should convey to any innocent reader
the notion that they exhibited a like forbearance in the case of the black. The
poor negroes were terribly victimized by their brutal assailants, many of them,
besides the instance mentioned, being left in a condition little short of death.
Regiments, in successive relays, subjected scores of these poor women to the
torture of their embraces, and – but we dare not farther pursue the subject – it
is one of such loathing and horror. There are some horrors which the historian
dare not pursue – which the painter dare not delineate. They both drop the
curtain over crimes which humanity bleeds to contemplate.”

“A City Laid Waste”, William Gilmore
Simms, Page 90
 
I really don’t expect to change you
or enlighten you. If this history lesson sticks a pin in your inflated ego, or
makes you pout, then I’d consider my job done.
 
And just for the record – I see a
couple of posts about the flag being raised on the State House in order to defy
Federal integration mandates. I’ve also heard this argument in other places,
Georgia for one, and I don’t buy it. You see, I’m old enough to remember the
Civil Rights demonstrations and resistance to federally mandated integration. I
remember Southern politicians PUBLICLY and LOUDLY speaking out against Federal
attempts to enforce integration. NO ONE WAS SHY about speaking out when it came
to these matters. Those were different times. No one was afraid to speak out for
fear of ostracism. There was NO need to indulge in hidden signals or code words
or surreptitious “flag-raising”, done with a wink of the eye. And I don’t
remember one Southern politician from any state saying that they would raise the
Confederate flag on any state house anywhere in order to protest any Federal
integration laws. Go ahead, look through the records. See if you can find a
quote of one Southern politician saying that this was so. You won’t find any.
 

Commack, NY

SCV Camp 3000
(Associate)
SCV Camp 1506
(Associate)

Now I’m getting lectured by "Confederates" from NY. It’s a weird world. And the one those guys live is in even weirder.

How much time do you suppose he spent on that? And WHY? I include this only because — while I personally only care about what South Carolinians think about the flag, since we’re the ones who have to decide what to do with it — I get an inordinate number of these, and they constitute part of the strangeness of this whole debate. Wannabe Confederates in Georgia, Florida, New York. It’s wild.

Ted Pitts gets “flagged”

Poor Ted Pitts. My House representative wasn’t in the Legislature when this issue was raging before. So he made the mistake of speaking candidly with me about the Confederate flag, and I wrote about it, and he found out how much sound and fury it can generate. I just got this letter from him:

Dear Editor,

Recently an editorial [my column of April 22] was published by Brad Warthen that
included remarks from a phone conversation he and I had regarding the
Confederate Flag.  I agreed with the point he made in a column that
outsiders can not move or remove the flag and the issue will be decided by South
Carolinians.  There was an impression given to some that I was leading a charge
to take down the Flag from behind the Confederate monument which is not the
case.

I am elected to discuss, develop opinions and try
to improve things in our State.  This includes education, healthcare, economic
development and anything the people of South Carolina want their elected
representatives to deal with.  This list currently includes the Confederate flag
that flies in front of the Statehouse.  Some say I should avoid the topic all
together but that is not what I feel I was elected to do. I have always found
the dynamics of the flag topic to be very interesting and never really felt like
I had a dog in that fight.

Since Mr. Warthen’s editorial I have gotten a crash
course on the Flag, the Confederate Monument and the tremendous efforts that
were undertaken to arrive at a compromise.  I have spoken to constituents,
legislators past and present, people of all races, business interests, long-time
South Carolinians and new residents of our state about the Flag and will
continue to do so. 

The Confederate Monument is one of many on the
statehouse grounds including an African-American monument that was built as a
result of the compromise.  I was not a member of the General Assembly when the
flag came off the dome and out of the Senate and House Chambers; but as a South
Carolinian I supported moving the Flag and now as a member of the SC House I
support honoring the compromise.

 

Sincerely,

Ted Pitts 

I get lectured on history … again

One of the most tiresome traits of those who defend the absurd practice of flying the Confederate flag at our State House is their smug belief that THEY are great students of history, and the rest of us are — among our many faults — ignorant.

Here’s an e-mail I got over the weekend:

Subject: Sterotyping and Logic Fallacies

    Dear Mr. Warthen,

I have taught secondary school, undergraduate, and graduate history for a number of years. I frequently encounter those who refuse to respect Southerners’ heritage due to bigotry and stereotyping.  Here’s a couple of photos I hope might show that stereotyping is wrong. The Kansas City Star newspaper ran a short column last week on a program I give around the country on black Confederate soldiers. The Battle Flag belongs to them as well.  Over-generalizing is a logic fallacy. The Battle Flag’s meaning isn’t defined by a minority of racists any more than they can define the meaning of our U.S. flag that they use.

    Regards,
    Ed Kennedy
    LtCol, US Army (ret)

Thank you for your service to your country, colonel. But I can’t resist sharing these thoughts with you:

    To enlarge
your perspective, you should probably do a little research on the Wehrmacht’s
Ost battalions
. There were likely  more Poles and other Eastern Europeans in the
German Army than there were blacks in the Confederate — that doesn’t mean the
Nazis didn’t want to enslave (or kill) Slavs, or that they didn’t regard them as
subhuman
.
 
    You might
also want to study up on the Stockholm Syndrome.
 
    When you
think about it, black soldiers in the Confederate army is hardly a more
surprising phenomenon than poor whites, who made up the vast majority of the
army. Both were dupes of the ruling class. Anyone who fought to support the
cause of secession who did NOT own slaves was a person risking his life for a
cause that was not his own, no matter what delusions he may have carried into
battle.
 
 
    … And it’s
spelled "stereotyping."
 
 

Democratic Debate Column

Debate

Orangeburg debate just
a start, but a good one

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
AS BOB COBLE walked out of a breakfast meeting Friday, the bearlike New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson placed him in a loose, amiable headlock and asked what he would have to do to get him to support his bid for the presidency.
    “You’ll have to squeeze harder than that,” I thought. As the governor knew, the Columbia mayor is a John Edwards man.
    But for those who had not made up their minds, the “debate” in Orangeburg Thursday night was a better-than-expected opportunity to begin the winnowing process.
    Eight candidates in 90 minutes is patently ridiculous. But those who planned and executed it, from South Carolina State University to MSNBC, can take pride in making the most of the situation.
National media, as expected, focus on which of the “two candidates,” Hillary or Obama (like Madonna, they no longer need titles or full names), came out on top. Some stretch themselves and mention ex-Sen. Edwards.
    OK, let’s dispense with that: Sen. Clinton presented no surprises, rock star Obama came across as pretty stiff playing in this orchestra — nothing of his usual, charismatic rolling thunder. Ex-Sen. Edwards did his usual shtick.
    But some of us tuned in to learn something new. I did. And I didn’t care which of the overexposed, anointed titans of fund-raising would be a more ideologically pure party standard-bearer. Those of us who spurn both parties — in other words, those of us who actually decide national elections — were looking for someone we might vote for (if such a person survives the partisan gantlet far enough to give us the chance). We’ll be looking for the same when the Republicans meet at the Koger Center May 15.
    I don’t think any of us got any conclusive answers. But the questions posed were good enough to provide some impressions, however scattered, that at least made the event worth the time invested:

Best new impression: I had heard good things about Gov. Richardson, but not met him before. The debate, plus his call-in to a radio show I was on Friday morning, made me want to find out more. I liked the fact that he was real, honest and unscripted, perhaps the result of being a governor and actually dealing with real problems instead of living in Washington’s 24-hour partisan echo chamber.

Best old impression: Could Sen. Joe Biden contain his gift of gab well enough to play well with others on such a crowded stage without his head exploding? “Yes.” Since I’ve heard him speak in our own board room for two hours almost without pause, this was a pleasant surprise. I’ve always liked the guy, but this is one Irishman who didn’t just kiss the Blarney Stone; he took it home with him.

Commander in chief? I expected the candidates to compete to see who was most against our involvement in Iraq and for the longest time. But if it’s fairly judged, Dennis Kucinich wins that pointless contest hands-down. It’s also a barrier to me, since I consider giving up in Iraq to be anathema. So I looked to see who was leaving themselves any room to present a more credible position in the general election, when it’s no longer necessary to court moveon.org. The winners of that contest: Sen. Biden, followed by Sen. Obama.

Second funniest moment: The look in John Edwards’ eyes when he acknowledged being filthy rich, just before going into his nostalgic boilerplate about having been poor once upon a time. This is a much-rehearsed look for him, intended to look like wide-eyed candor. But it struck me like, You bet I’m rich, and lovin’ it, too. Probably an anomaly in the camera angle.

Making Kucinich sound reasonable: A writer on Slate.com summed it up better than I can, as follows: “When the candidates were asked who owned a gun, (Ex-Sen. Mike) Gravel was one of those who raised his hand. ‘I was worried that he meant he had one with him at the moment,’ said a senior adviser to a top candidate.” I hadn’t gotten around to including a link to this particular candidate on my blog. After Thursday night, I don’t think I’ll bother.

Common sense: You could tell who really wanted to be president. They raised their hands to say they believed there’s such a thing as a global War on Terror, and didn’t raise their hands to support Dennis the Menace’s move to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Outside of partisan blogs there’s something we call the real world; everyone except Rep. Kucinich showed that they live in it at least part-time.

The most enduring litmus test: Even after all the times I’ve seen and heard this, the grip of the abortion lobby on the Democratic Party still strikes me as astounding. Is there any greater demonstration of the power of party uber alles than hearing a Roman Catholic such as Sen. Biden emphatically saying, “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,” and asserting complete faith in the existence of a right to privacy in the Constitution?

South Carolina’s shame: Only one thing was mentioned all night that let you know this took place in South Carolina — the Confederate flag at our State House. So much for our wish to build a new image based on hydrogen research and the like.

    The event helped me begin to focus on this process, which has been easy to ignore with everything going on in South Carolina. There will be many debates, interviews and other opportunities before the winnowing is done. Whether this newspaper will support, or whether I personally will vote for, any of these candidates is a question that it is far too soon to answer.
    But this was a start.