It's the beachball at a memorial service syndrome.

Here's Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (emphasis added):

It was a jarring moment, caught by TV news cameras as Georgia's governor-elect, Republican Sonny Perdue, celebrated his stunning victory Tuesday night.

As Perdue borrowed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous oratory -- "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" -- to underscore the end of Democratic Party dominance in Georgia, one of Perdue's supporters, standing in the background, waved a flag emblazoned with the Confederate battle emblem.

The clash of symbols was startling.

...

Perdue is a decent man who does not have a reputation for racial divisiveness. Having been elected, he seems a little embarrassed by his campaign's emphasis on the old state flag, and he may be reluctant to drag Georgia through a racially tinged confrontation over Confederate symbols.

It also looks like even the Son's of Confederate Veterans are going to cut him some slack and not push for a flag referendum right away.

Meanwhile, the Sons of Confederate Veterans decided Monday -- at least tentatively -- to wait until after Perdue's inauguration Jan. 13 to stage a massive rally at the Capitol advocating a return to a state banner dominated by the Confederate battle emblem.

Instead, the rally will be scheduled a day later, making it less likely that Perdue's swearing-in will be overshadowed by Rebel flags and demonstrators in Confederate regalia -- along with counter-protesters.

"We know that he's got a big job to do in fixing the new government, and we're not trying to interfere with that," said Dan Coleman, spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

...

Since Barnes' defeat, which he blamed partially on his stand on the flag, many "flaggers" have been disturbed by comments from Perdue that seemed to play down their role in his victory.

On Monday, the Sons of Confederate Veterans reiterated the group's insistence on a return to the previous state flag. Anything else, said Coleman, "would be more or less of an admission that there's something wrong" with the Confederate battle emblem.

But at least for a while, the spokesman said, flaggers will bow to Perdue's contention that other issues -- such as an economic downturn and cuts to the state budget -- might have dibs on his attention. "We're letting him set his own pace. We think Sonny is a man of his word," Coleman said.

He said a final decision on the date of the flaggers' rally, expected to attract thousands, will be made Saturday.

Allow me to summarize:

Before the election Perdue favored a referendum on the issue of the state flag. It gained him a lot of support. Perhaps enough to win.

Now that's he's in, he's back pedaling.

He may not be a racist, but it sure sounds like he was either pandering then or pandering now.

Which one do you think it is?

Okay. So it's pretty as I thought. Like countless Democratic politicians, Sonny Perdue said he'd rather not change the Georgia flag. He got the endorsement of an old-line group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans. But he did not make the confederate flag central to his election campaign, didn't run around waving that flag, and there was no confederate flag "waving over his victory rally." One supporter waved one flag, and northern Democrats, trying to foment hatred, tried to pervert it into something it never was.

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it, Lynxx.

>>"He may not be a racist, but it sure sounds like he was either pandering then or pandering now.

Which one do you think it is?"

Let me think, hmmmm, is he a politician? Well, yes, he is, so he is ALWAYS pandering to someone. No politician who doesn't can get elected in this country.

Let's talk about that Confederate Battle Flag for a minute.

There was far FAR more to the Civil War than a dispute over slavery. It was also an economic war, the industrializzed North against the agrarian South. And it was a political war, with the Northern controlled congress trying to impose laws on the South that benefitted the North. (And all of this had nothing to do with slavery, slavery was another issue.)

Most of all, however, the Civil War truly WAS what the southerners tend to call it today, The War of Northern Aggression.

The Civil War made this country what it is today, but it totally destroyed the United STATES. At the beginning of the Civil War, each state WAS a "state", a country of it's own, joined to all the other states by an agreement to work in concert, but GOVERNED by its own people. After the Civil War, each state was no more than a subdivision of THE state, i.e. the Federal Government.

I would argue, first of all, that it was better when each state was its own government, and secondly that slavery would have died out without Federal intervention, as it did in all industrialized nations before the end of the century. Slavery is uneconomical, it cannot compete with industrialization.

But, my opinion aside, the veterans of the Confederate Army (which included free black men as well as whites) had much to be proud of. They fought valiantly, with inferior equipment, against a numerically superior AGGRESSOR, and came within a hair of winning thier freedom. They damned SURE had a right to be proud, and thier descendants do as well.

Having said that, I can understand the position of SOME black groups that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism. This is true, if for no other reason, because too many boneheads like the Klan have co-opted the flag as thier own symbol.

But the fact that THEY consider it racist does not mean that anyone who dares to honor the men who died for what they believed in, that anyone who dares to honor more than 100 years of tradition in that state flag, is therefore a vile racist scumbag.

it just isn't so.

There is a smelly little orthodox bigotry of notherners--self-described "liberal Democrats," by and large--which causes them to treat white southerners with a casual prejudice that would be breathtaking if it were aimed at, oh, just about any other group in America.

These folks tend to believe that the Democrats are hemmoraghing voters in the South because all the racists and segregationists became Republicans. But that's always been a lie. Not just because countless segregationists stayed with the Democrats--although that's true enough. And not just because most of America's segregationists are dead--although most of them are.

No, it's a lie because Republicans have never once, in their entire history, been a segregationist party, and have never once changed their stance on civil rights. Not in the South, and not anywhere else. It was, is, and always has been equality before the law regardless of skin color.

The real reason so many Democrats in the South turn Republican is the kind of condescending, bigoted northern elitism (including the self-flagellating kind) that's come to afflict so much of the Democratic Party. The kind that, amongst other things, assumes that love for the confederate flag translates to racism, or pandering to it.

So let's get this straight: Turning the endorsement of one group of civil-war buffs--a group which you can bet your life savings has endorsed countless Democrats--and the waving of one flag by one volunteer at one campaign event, into "pandering" to racists, is execrable. Turning Perdue's discomfort with such heavy emphasis on such a minor issue into "backpedaling," furthermore, is exactly the type of "politics of personal destruction" that so many people claim to hate.

It's repugnant, it's ugly, and it's rooted in a base form of ignorance and bigotry toward southerners that I am at a loss to find words to condemn appropriately. So let me just say:

White southerners are liberal Democrats' niggers.

'nuff said.

Oh yeah, except:

Pbtbtbtbttbtbtbt, ya damn yankee.

I am an immigrant and the son of immigrants. No one in my family fought or died in the American Civil War. I have always maintained an antipathy to antebellum society. I see it as a worthless, would-be aristocracy deriving economic benefits from an immoral institution--slavery. I have no patience with efforts to romanticize or glamorize it.

Pride in one's collective ancestry is understandable and commendable. The tendency to cast past defeats as martyrdom "for the cause" is something I can well relate to considering my Scottish/Irish ancestry. However, there comes a time when individuals must stop living in the shadow of their ancestors. The nonsense over slave reparations and the insistence that the Confederate flag has any relevance other than a symbol of a society which was ass-backward by 19th century standards are both examples of arguments that need to be put to rest. They are attempts at re-fighting a war that ended long before any one alive today was even thought of. I say, let Georgians decide what flag they want to wave over their capitol. I don't care. It is not inherently racist. It is just identifies them as losers in a 140 year old war against history.

And yes, I am a Northerner. I am also someone who lives in the 21st century and is willing to pledge allegiance to only one flag, of one nation--indivisible.

This is mostly for Gary.

Regarding the industrialized north vs. the agrarian south... The way that the farm system was set up in the south made slavery necessary in order for farmers to continue living the lifestyle they were accustomed to, so slavery is definitely involved in the economic aspect of the conflict. Slaves were bought and sold and made many wealthy, also part of southern economics. And as to states being governed by the people living in that state, only a limited percentage of the population (white male landowners) were able to take part in the government. The states were not governed by their people, but by their landowners. Why would these same landowners ever allow slavery to end and make those same slaves citizens with all of the rights due to them? This would be giving away their power and economic security.

Are you actually trying to make the argument that it would have been more economical for the farm and plantation owners to pay workers to tend their fields rather than own slaves who are required to work them?

Finally, you say the Confederate Army came within a hair of winning their freedom. Uhh, I do believe that the South is free today, and always has been since that conflict was settled. The Confederate flag represents the old south, and slavery was a defining characteristic of the old south, hence slavery will always be associated with the Confederate flag in the same way that swastikas will always be associated with anti-Semitism.

If the people in Georgia want a Confederate symbol on their state flag, they are free to put it on the ballot and vote for it. It is naive, however, to expect that everybody else in the nation should forget what that flag has been associated with in the past.

Er, Brian:

The vast majority of the men who fought for the Confederacy never owned a slave in their lives. Some were abolitionists. In the meantime, some slaveholding states, like Maryland, fought for the Union. Some Confederate states were non-slaveholding or held very, very few states (Texas, for example).

And, yes, slavery was far less economical that paying workers. Because slaves make terrible workers. Most of the farms in the region continued to produce that way after the war, and some still do today. Slavery was inherently costly and unworkable.

By the way, the swastika is a symbol that is many thousands of years old, associated with a good many positive images, and is still in popular use by many Orthodox Christians as a variation on the crucifix.

The insistence on tying the confederate flag with one issue and one way of seeing things pigeonholes too many people. If we're really over these issues, then the civil and decent thing to do would be to allow people to cling to their memories and legends without assuming anything nefarious on their part.

When the war ended, Lincoln pledged malice toward none, and charity toward all, and asked for forgiveness on all sides and all around. Almost 150 years later, a sign to me that people still haven't heard that message.

Psst -- Dean! You skipped the part where a southerner shot Lincoln.

Seriously, Robert Fogel, a Professor in the Graduate School of Business, won the Nobel Prize in Economics for applying economics and statistics to the study of history. In his work on slavery in the United States, Fogel has argued that the market would not have ended slavery, as it remained a profitable and efficient system for slave owners.

In his book, "Time on the Cross," written with Stanley Engerman and published in 1974, Fogel argued that the institution of slavery had been more profitable than previously thought. His conclusion gave rise to a decade of controversy, and he was attacked as somehow endorsing slavery. Fogel later published a four-volume study called "Without Consent or Contract," in which he argued forcefully that slavery ended not because it was economically inefficient, but because it was morally repugnant.

...and so on and so forth.

Not having read Professor Fogel's book, I can't comment on it meaningfully--except to say that I am skeptical. But I also don't think it much matters.

The confederacy failed almost a century and a half ago, and is largely an irrelevancy today. Except it is part of a heritage that means a very great deal to a lot of people. You don't have to like it, but you can try to respect it instead of treating it with contempt.

We have a certain group of people wish to retain a sense of pride in their heritage. Believe it or not, I'm not one of them. My ancestors are all American Indians, immigrants who came over after the Civil War, or fought for the Union. There are Esmays buried on Civil War battlefields, as members of the Union Army.

But I have a deep and abiding respect for the south, and a bone to pick with people who stereotype it and its people.

Most southerners are not racist, and there are no more racists down there than there are anywhere else in the country. Most southerners resent being lectured to about this issue. The symbol of the confederacy simply doesn't mean that to them--you can put whatever spin on it you want, but most folks who love that symbol don't see it your way. If you don't believe that's the case, then that's your own prejudices at work and your own problem.

In any case, If you want to continue alienating these people, just keep telling them to be ashamed of their ancestors. And, if you're going to do that as a political party, then there will be a price to pay--a heavy one. (But then, I already pointed that out, didn't I?)

When the average southerner is told that the confederacy is a legacy of slavery and hatred, he'll basically tell you to go screw yourself. Ditto if you tell him to be ashamed of a flag he's never been ashamed of and never really associated with racism. Tell him the flag should be done away with to meet the sensibilities of black citizens, and he'll ask you why their sensibilities matter but his don't--segregation ended 40 years ago and most of those who advocated it recanted and apologized and are now DEAD.

It is, unfortunately, quite true that some racist groups like the KKK have latched onto the symbol. On the other hand, it's also true that groups like this now have memberships numbering in the hundreds, rather than the millions they once had.

And having noted that, it should also be said that quite a few black people down there, including some black politicians in places like Georgia, badly wish this flag issue would go away since it's a big distraction, and doesn't mean that damned much to them.

Bottom line: Keep telling people it's about racism and "pandering to racists" and "a shameful legacy," and see what happens to Democrats at the polls. Oh, wait, we're already seeing that, aren't we?

Insinuating that the South is a hotbed of racism and seething segregationists just waiting for the chance to put the darkies back into chains does nothing to solve these issues. Indeed, it's simply a nasty prejudice that people need to be disabused of.

Also, having lived in Chicago, and spent much time in Detroit, I find the notion of Northerners attacking southerners as racist highly amusing. Pot-kettle-black doesn't even come close.

I will also end with this: I take it as proof that black people no longer have any serious problems as a community when they have nothing better to do than to complain about a relic from a time so long ago.

Brian,

This is mostly for Gary.

>>"Regarding the industrialized north vs. the agrarian south... The way that the farm system was set up in the south made slavery necessary in order for farmers to continue living the lifestyle they were accustomed to.."

That turns out not to be the case. The farm system in the south was just like the farm system in the north, with the exception of the plantations. MOST farms were worked by familys, familys that did not own slaves, familys that earned thier bread by the sweat of thier OWN brows. Plantations were never that common. You had to be RICH to have a plantation, and you didn't get there because you had slaves. Slaves cost MONEY, money to buy, and money to maintain. They were economical as long as cotton was king and as long as there were no mechanical cotton pickers.

>>"...so slavery is definitely involved in the economic aspect of the conflict."

Involved, but not the main item of conflict. Remember that the North was not trying to end slavery with this war. Ending slavery was a tactic that Lincoln came up with later in the war.

>>"Slaves were bought and sold..."

So were horses.

>>"...and made many wealthy, also part of southern economics."

Sorry. They made SOME wealthy. Not MANY, just some. The slave trade, in and of itself, was no longer a major part of the southern economy by the time of the Civil War. Slave LABOR was still significant, but it was not dominant, even then.

>>"And as to states being governed by the people living in that state, only a limited percentage of the population (white male landowners) were able to take part in the government."

Hmmm, yes, those evil Northeners would not let thier women vote, would not let thier citizens vote if they did not own land. It was terrible, terrible. Really. You know, women couldn't vote in England either. Or France. Or much of anywhere. Oh, wait, YOU think the Southerns were more evil than the rest of the world because women and paupers couldn't vote, is that it?

>>" The states were not governed by their people, but by their landowners. Why would these same landowners ever allow slavery to end and make those same slaves citizens with all of the rights due to them? This would be giving away their power and economic security. "

Because MOST of the landowners were of the "40 acres and a mule" variety. Small farmers, store owners, businessmen. The only "landowners" who had a vested interest in slavery were the plantation owners, and there just weren't that many plantations.

>>"Are you actually trying to make the argument that it would have been more economical for the farm and plantation owners to pay workers to tend their fields rather than own slaves who are required to work them?"

No. I'm not.

>>"Finally, you say the Confederate Army came within a hair of winning their freedom. Uhh, I do believe that the South is free today, and always has been since that conflict was settled. "

Depends on your point of view. The South is Conquered Land. Go tell the Palestinians that THEY are free. (They are, by the same standard.)

>>"The Confederate flag represents the old south, and slavery was a defining characteristic of the old south..."

Well, actually, it wasn't. Slavery was just not that big a part of day to day life in the South. That's the way YOU see it because YOU haven't actually studied it, and because no one is really interested in telling any stories of the Old South that don't revolve around slavery.

>>"...hence slavery will always be associated with the Confederate flag in the same way that swastikas will always be associated with anti-Semitism."

Well, yeah, ignorant racist buffoons will always make those associations. People with some willingness to think instead of just spouting the opinions of others will make other associations.

>>"If the people in Georgia want a Confederate symbol on their state flag, they are free to put it on the ballot and vote for it. It is naive, however, to expect that everybody else in the nation should forget what that flag has been associated with in the past."

So the people of Georgia should throw away thier traditions, thier history, perhaps even thier honor, in order to win the good opinion of ignorant racists who will think poorly of them no matter what they do? I don't think so.

You know, it is a virtual certainty that if you're a black southerner, you've got as many slaveowners and confederate soldiers in your ancestry as any cracker in Georgia.

This is partly because of the widespread sexual relations between slaves and owners. It's also part of a hundred-year-long pattern of southern white men keeping black mistresses, which is rarely talked about today but was once exceedingly common.

This is not even counting the blacks who owned slaves, or the free blacks who fought for the confederacy, who also existed. (And it's entirely aside from the slave owners who fought for the Union, who also existed.)

Beyond those uncomfortable facts, it is also a certainty that if you have slave ancestersm, they were mostly sold into slavery by other black people. Almost all the slave-catchers and merchants in Africa were black.

These were all things that some black writers during the Harlem Rennaissance, in the early 20th Century, had begun to explore and try to come to grips with. Sadly, it's been almost completely forgotten and/or swept under the rug today.

Embracing a common ancestry, letting go of the grief and the anger, acknowledging the bad along with the good--this is something people could do. I suspect it's something they ultimately will do. It's just going to take more time, I guess.

Shaming people about their heritage isn't the right tactic, however.

Dean:

I'm surprised you blew off Fogel's book so quickly.

You ought not to dismiss "Time on the Cross."

It probably does more to support your view than almost anything else said here so far.

Check it out at Amazon. If I know you, you'll put it on your wish list. And pay attention to the reader reviews. They say a lot.

You can thank me later. Or not. Just look at the book, at least.

The one thing that so many people seem to want to forget about (or never even knew in the first place) in any discussion of whether slavery had any future in the South is the fact that the slave trade was abolished by the Confederate Constitution (Article I, Section 9, I think - could be wrong) and that the first state to abolish the slave trade was a Southern state: Virginia. There were those in the South who knew that slavery was on the way out, and who were trying to find a way out of it without depriving slaveowners of their "property." There were also those who believed sincerely that slavery was the only moral way to deal with the inferiority of the black "race," the only really humane thing to ensure their safety and well-being. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's true. It's tragic that slavery ever happened at all, and we all know this now. But perceptions were very different then, and to try to judge attitudes from the past by the standards of today is always a mistake, in my opinion. A large part of the economic dispute that fomented the war was over cotton warehouse receipts, which allowed Southern plantation workers to sell cotton to European brokers with no tax whatever imposed. As with any and every other war, and indeed with all history, there's more to the story than most of us realize or care to admit. It's always a lot easier just to oversimplify things. The idea that the North was the loving, caring, absolutely moral savior of the black man is a load of bunk too, especially when you consider the laws passed before the war in Massachusetts and other places which mandated that any black found within the state's borders would be beaten and shown to the borders. No one in the Northern states has any justification whatever to feel overly smug about the Civil War, nor to look too far down his nose at his Southern cousins. There's plenty of guilt to go around, I assure you.

Oh yeah, almost forgot - the Confederate battle flag thing is just silly. And, interestingly enough, it looks like the next Prez of the Sons of Confederate Veterans just might be a black man who lives about fifteen miles from where I grew up. I'll look around for more details on this (I read about it in the local newspaper this past weekend) and post something about it on my site later, if anyone's the least bit interested.

I think my post was misconstrued in a number of ways. First, I am not completely ignorant about the issue. I've studied as much if not more than your average college student majoring in the sciences. Granted that may not be saying much as many students can't even find Iraq on a map, but I have studied it some.

My essential point was that, despite the number of people who insist the Civil War was not really about slavery, slavery in fact was an important issue. True, it didn't start out that way, but it was wrapped up in both political and economic issues of the time. I am aware that the North did not allow their women to vote either, and that abolitionists fought for both sides. My argument was related more to symbolism and perceptions than who was right and who was wrong. Nowhere did I imply the south was EVIL.

Gary, you mention point of view regarding the freedom of the south and you compare it to the freedom of Palestinians. Well I think point of view becomes a very important point also when you consider whether or not slavery was a part of everyday life in the south. Think of that from the point of view of a plantation slave or owner. And what of those slaves ancestors, should they forget their heritage? Yep, part of everyday life.

Dean, you are right about the swastika being used for ages to symbolize good things. But I dare you to put one on a flag and fly it over your house. There would definitely be protests even if you only meant to express your beliefs in Christianity. The symbol of the swastika is just too closely tied, rightly or wrongly, to Anti-semitism.

Finally, I never meant to imply that Georgians should forget about their heritage. As a matter of fact I stated they should "put it on the ballot and vote for it". I will not try to stop them. I will, however, continue to have an opinion, and continue to express it as is my right. And that opinion is that slavery IS part of the heritage of the south (and other places). Let's not forget it and let it never happen again in America.

Gary:

The South is Conquered Land. Go tell the Palestinians that THEY are free. (They are, by the same standard.)

Well, the standard is different here. Over here, a single Constitution applies to all 50 states of the Union.

Here is an interesting parallel story. Many of the same arguments appear...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20021126/ap_on_re_eu/russia_red_star

Thanks Brian.

The Soviet Union failed almost fifteen years ago and is largely an irrelevancy today. Except it is part of a heritage that means a very great deal to a lot of people. You don't have to like it, but you can try to respect it instead of treating it with contempt.

The Russians are a group of people who wish to retain a sense of pride in their communist heritage. Believe it or not, I'm not one of them.

But I have a deep and abiding respect for Russia, and a bone to pick with people who stereotype her and her people.

Most Russians are not communist, and there are no more communists there than there are anywhere else in the former Soviet Union. Most Russians resent being lectured to about this issue. The symbol of the Soviet Union simply doesn't mean that to them--you can put whatever spin on it you want, but most folks who love that symbol don't see it your way. If you don't believe that's the case, then that's your own prejudices at work and your own problem.

In any case, If you want to continue alienating these people, just keep telling them to be ashamed of their recent history. And, if you're going to do that as a political party, then there will be a price to pay--a heavy one. (But then, I already pointed that out, didn't I?)

When the average Russian is told that the Soviet Union is a legacy of slavery and hatred, he'll basically tell you to go screw yourself.

Ditto if you tell him to be ashamed of a flag he's never been ashamed of and never really associated with oppression. Tell him the flag should be done away with to meet the sensibilities of freedom-loving citizens, and he'll ask you why their sensibilities matter but his don't--the Berlin Wall came down 13 years ago and most of those who advocated it recanted and apologized and are now DEAD.

It is, unfortunately, quite true that some communist groups like Zhirnovsky's have latched onto the symbol. On the other hand, it's also true that groups like his now have memberships numbering in the hundreds, rather than the millions they once had.

And having noted that, it should also be said that quite a few freedom-loving people in Russia, including some freedom-loving politicians in places like Georgia, badly wish this flag issue would go away since it's a big distraction, and doesn't mean that damned much to them.

Bottom line: Keep telling people it's about Communism and "pandering to Communists" and "a shameful legacy," and see what happens to capitalists at the polls. Oh, wait, we're already seeing that, aren't we?

Insinuating that Russia is a hotbed of Communism and seething imperialists just waiting for the chance to put Eastern Europe back into chains does nothing to solve these issues. Indeed, it's simply a nasty prejudice that people need to be disabused of.

I will also end with this: I take it as proof that freedom-loving people no longer have any serious problems as a community when they have nothing better to do than to complain about a relic from a time so long ago.

Brian,

>>"My essential point was that, despite the number of people who insist the Civil War was not really about slavery, slavery in fact was an important issue. "

It became an important issue because Lincoln MADE it an important issue by freeing the slaves. It was not the cause of that war, it was not WHY the North fought the South.

The Confederacy was NOT about maintaining the slave trade. There is nothing in the Constitution as it stood at that time that forbade any state from seceding. States that SHOULD have been free to conduct thier own affairs were CONQUERED by the North. Shermans march through Georgia was as brutal and devastating as anything done in any of the World Wars.

I'm not a Southerner, I have no history there, but I learned about the War of Northern Aggression from some Southern men who were born right after the war (the Boomers of thier time). They grew up hearing thier fathers tell thier first person experiences.

The Civil War was WRONG. The North had no legal right to do what it did. After the war, the North ground the neck of the South under its heel. The South WAS a conquered land, and treated as such. Much southern land was seized on various pretexts by Northerner "carpetbaggers". The Reconstruction, as it was called ws a cruel and brutal regime imposed on a barely conquered enemy.

And by the way, the Ku Klux Klan originated in those days, not as a racist organization bent on keeping the Nigra down, but as a guerilla band trying to keep the "carpetbaggers" from going too far.

The Klan put the fear of God into a lot of petty tyrants, and hung not a few. And as the Reconstruction faded, adn the need for it faded, so went the Klan. (Which was led, in that incarnation, by General Nathan Bedford Forrest and hero of the Confederacy.)

Around the turn of the century, the Klan was revived by racists and took on the tone we are more familiar with today.

Whatever. MY essential point was that the South was not an evil, racist regime whose only goal was the enslavement of their fellow man and building fortunes on the back of the black man. The winners write the history books, and the history books don't tell you the TRUTH because there just isn't much market for it. ("The truth is out there" but you have to look for it.)

Ara,

>>"Well, the standard is different here. Over here, a single Constitution applies to all 50 states of the Union."

Yes? So what's your point? The Palestinians today are as free as the people of the Confederacy were during the time of Northern occupation.

If that conflicts with the picture you've always had of the South, you need to look into it more.

See my note about the Klan above. The Klan was the Hezbollah of its day, never doubt it.

Gary:

Like I always say: The past is not dead. Hell, the past is not past!

Love the Russia post Putin. Seems I've heard that argument somewhere before?

Remember when the Confederacy was a world-spanning Empire that forcibly annexed its neighbors? Remember how they imprisoned anyone who dissented from the government? Remember how the confederacy enslaved 100% of the population, and never allowed any of them to be free, ever?

And remember how those who fought the Communists also enslaved people?

---

Let me ask you, "Vladimir" (and Brian): If everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line wears sackcloth and ashes for a year, chants a daily prayer every day begging the forgiveness of black people, and swears a daily affirmation, saying, "I hate my forefathers, they were evil people who did no good and I wish I had no relation to them," would that make you happy?

-=-=-

I, for one, would never suggest that the children of veterans of the Red Army should be ashamed of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents for fighting valiantly in battle. There should be no flinching about discussing the evil that army worked, on the other hand.

Given that their cause was a thousand times more evil than anything the Confederacy ever did, this is still a bizarre discussion.

Still, I must admit, that were I a Russian politician, never expect to win office by berating the Russian people about how evil their great-grandparents were. Nor would any sane person who wanted my political party to ever win another election.

On the third hand, I also don't have a big problem with the Russians using the red star. It's just a symbol. It's controversial, I understand it, but to let it get in the way of progress?

If forgiveness means anything, it can start by letting people cling to symbols that are meaningful to them, even if we don't share the same view of those symbols.

By the way, why don't we also start a movement to get rid of that ultimate symbol of slavery: the Stars and Stripes?

After all, that's the flag that flew over the land while the slave trade was still in action, and flew over all the slave states until 1861 or so. And don't forget, two slave states were part of the Union that fought the confederacy!

That bastard Jefferson. That sonofabitch Washington. And the rest of those Declaration of Independence-signing hypocrites.

Shouldn't everyone in the U.S. be ashamed of our heritage? After all, it's a heritage of slavery and oppression all the way around, isn't it?

Gary, your comparison here is off-base.

You are certainly 100% correct that the original KKK, formed in 1865 and disbanded by 1870, has no relationship whatsoever to the KKK we are familiar with today. The KKK jerkwads we know now (and there are only a few thousand of them nationwide) are based on an organization formed in 1918 by a man who had no relation to the original KKK at all.

And you're right, the original KKK did not concern itself with terrorizing black people. That was a whole new innovation brought in by the 20th century dorks.

Indeed, I find it particularly irksome that some people who are ignorant of the history of these two organizations tend to roll their eyes and act like you're splitting hairs when you point this out. Or they try to act like they were two "phases" of the same thing, which is asinine. This is like suggesting that there were two "phases" to the Middle Ages: the actual Middle Ages, and today's Rennaisance Fairs.

However, the comparison to Hizbullah is rather off-base. The original KKK would never, ever have condoned the widespread bombing of civilian targets and the mass, wholesale slaughter of women, children, old men, and so forth. They also never had a plan to drive every Yankee into the sea, killing every last one of them.

The pathetic losers of the second KKK might well advocate doing such things to blacks and Jews, but they are a joke. Hizbullah, on the other hand, remains a mass-murdering organization still actively engaged in killing Jews.

Robert E. Lee hated slavery and tried to get Jefferson Davis to free all the slaves in the South. Did red army generals do that too I wonder?

Jews and catholics fought for the confederacy and the Sec. of War for the confederates was jewish. The orig. kkk had jews and catholics as members because they were all just old confed. officers who had problems with the skalawags (republicans) and carpetbaggers. The second kkk terrorized and killed jews and catholics along with blacks. I don't know if everybody knows that.

Like alot of things these issues get all mixed up but I dont think its very fair to say the confederates killed millions of people in gulags, altho they did have slaves so did some of the union states and also you could become a free black in the old south but you could never bee free if you were in communist countries. Also most confederates didn't have slaves duh.

Dean,

Did the confederate civil war general who founded the KKK, Nathan Bedford Forrest, disown it because even it became too violent for his taste? And, does this not imply that the original KKK had its own mean, racist streak trying to keep blacks in their place i.e., at the bottom of the societal ladder? I believe I learned this from Ken Burns' PBS documentary on the civil war.

"Shouldn't everyone in the U.S. be ashamed of our heritage?"

Dean, you hit the nail on the head there bud. I don't know if 'ashamed' is the correct word. I prefer 'aware'. Lord knows that the U.S. hasn't always done the right thing. And our current flag is hated by many around the world for that reason. But once again it all seems to come down to point of view, because I still am proud of my country and believe in what my flag ultimately stands for. Only a sincere effort on both sides to understand the opposing viewpoint and a willingness to forgive will lead to a solution acceptable to both sides. And until that happens, no reparations, no state flag, no racially-motivated legislation will be satisfactory to all.

Brian Sak: on most of that, I can quite agree. Peace, brother.

Kevin: You are surely right. Thank you for saying that. I don't want to be whitewashing the original KKK. I just wish more people understood the history. Like a lot of things involving the civil war, it's a complex thing.

The original KKK was founded in Georgia in 1865, and was very loosely organized. After a couple of years some of them became hoodlums. That's one reason why the general who founded them repudiated some of the members, and disbanded the organization.

Another reason they faded away--besides the fact that their founder and his followers declared the organization defunct--was that the Republicans were driven out of power in the South.

We forget this but the original KKK's main stated target was members of the Republican Party! "Scalawag" is a term that originates from that era. It was their word for Republicans!

Once local elections were restored and Democrats began to restore their control again in the south, many of the issues the original Klan fought for were addressed. Abuses by Republican governors and other appointed Republican officials went away as they were replaced by local Democrats.

Not that this was a good thing for everyone. Once the (sometimes abusive) Republicans were replaced by good Democrats, the rights of blacks to vote was crushed, Jim Crow began to come into force, and etc.

The first Klan mostly went out of business when Nathan Bedford Forrest and his followers disbanded. A few carried on, but they faded into obscurity as the political situation changed and the reason for their existence faded.

--=-=-

The second KKK was founded in Tennessee by a man named William Simmons, in 1915 (not 1918 like I said above). He had no relation to the original group. His entire focus was on creating an organization like the Kiwanis or the Shriners! They portrayed themselves, and acted as, a fraternal organization just like them.

But of course hidden underneath the respectable exterior was the terrorizing of jews, catholics ("papists"), negros, and foreign influences.

Surprisingly, they also had a major campaign against wife-beaters and drunks. No I am not making that up. So far as I know they were the first major group to attempt to make a national issue out of spousal abuse! (Isn't history fun?)

The movie "Birth of a Nation" was a major boon for William Simmons. He exploited it quite skillfully. People thrilled by that movie were often thrilled to join the "heroic" KKK depicted in the film, having no idea that this wasn't the same organization at all.

People do not know this but at one point the KKK had millions of members, in every state of the union. They were very active in the midwest and out west, and had mayors, judges, governors, and politicians of all stripes in their membership, in states that were never part of the Confederacy.

Indeed, Harry Truman almost joined the Klan at one point. He was talked out of it by his political boss. Later on he became a fighter against the corrupt influence of the Klan in politics.

In fact here's an interesting twist: it may be that one of the reasons why the actions of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, and the Armey-McCarthey hearings, were so easily accepted by the public was because the public was also used to these things.

In the 1930s there had been major government programs to expose KKK infiltration of government at the state and federal level. After all this was a secret organization with a hidden agenda and they had members everywhere in government. There were major campaigns to expose them and get them out of the government. Then leading up to, and during, World War II, there was a similar public effort to ferret out Nazis and Nazi sympathizers.

By the time of the McCarthy era, people were very used to these kinds of things. After all they had seen successful efforts to expose and drive the Klan out of government only a decade or two before.

(I love history.)

>>" However, the comparison to Hizbullah is rather off-base. "

I just wanted to stick with Palestine to avoid more confusion, but what the hell, if Vlad is going to post about Russia....

Think of the original Klan as the original IRA and you're pretty close to the mark. And an awful lot of the residents of the British ruled part of Ireland consider thier land to be occupied by a foreign oppressor.

>>"His entire focus was on creating an organization like the Kiwanis or the Shriners!"

In that time there were many many "fraternal" organizations. They provided all sorts of services for members, mortgage loans, savings accounts, "unemployment" payments, "medical insurance" as well as simply providing a place to gather and socialize. Some of the remnants of those societies that remain today are the Kiwanis, the Moose, Elks, Oddfellows, Masons (although the Masons are much older), Lions, Shriners and Rotarians. (There are a lot of others that are only local these days, like the Mallards down home.)

These societies/fraternal organizations were very important through the depression, but began to fade away before WWII.

Speaking of the KKK:

Name this man:

He came from a merchant class background in Alabama. He grew up to become a successful personal injury attorney and later a judge. Further on, he was elected to the US Senate and gained a reputation as a liberal and backed FDR's New Deal.

FDR nominated him to the Supreme Court. His nomination was successfully reviewed by the Judiciary Committee and sent to the Senate for confirmation. However during the debate, it was intimated that the nominee had belonged to the KKK fifteen years previous. He (and FDR) were castigated for it, but the nomination was approved.

After being sworn in, the media grabbed the story and revealed the rumors to be true -- the United States Supreme Court now had a Justice who had belonged to the Ku Klux Klan.

Furthermore, the entire affair again spotlighted FDR's court-packing scheme, an aspect of the New Deal that was extremely unpopular.

Nonetheless, this Justice went on to gain a reputation as one of the most liberal Justices of the 20th century.

Can you name him?

Hugo Black

ding ding ding --- we have a winner!

The truth is the KKK, along with the Knights of Carmelia, were mainly paramilitary organizations,
along the lines of the rural militias, that arose
in Central America, in the last quarter of the 21st Century; or that of the Broederbund in South
Africa. The truth, is also that the Confederate flag, whether or not it was actually flown in the
period, between 1877 and 1954; is emblematic of the Bourbon redeemer culture, in Charleston, Atlanta, Richmond et al. Another fact, is that the South, during that period, had effectively
crushed any opposition; from the Republican skallywags to the flawed but well intentioned
black dominated Reconstruction governments. The
irony of the Jim Crow redux parallel suggested by
the losers in the 2000 election. is that Hayes, probably did have win the vote, considering that
the disputed states, were those where there had
been an active voter suppression campaign. Of course, the fact that from Cleveland on, Southern fried apartheid voting bloc was tacitly supported by the Democratic party; is unmistakable. Consider Woodrow Wilson, whose cabinet, would bring fond memories in Pretoria; (with the clatch
of McAdoo, McReynolds, Bryan, with lesser lights
like future State Department gauletier; Breckenridge Long) John Davis, the nominee in 1924, who went on to argue against Brown in '54.
Or local figures, like Leo Frank's intellectual
assassin, Tom Watson, Walter George, the Klans
other Georgia senator, for whom Kerry pere, was
a staff director, Fulbright, Bill Clinton's mentor, whose aristocratic supremacism, was only
one step removed from that of Orval Faubus. We
don't even want to mention the Missisippi duo of
Theodore Bilbo, John Rankin; et al. with that distinguished lineage, the GOP's employment of
Helms and Thurmond, seems almost an oversight

>>"The truth is the KKK, along with the Knights of Carmelia, were mainly paramilitary organizations, along the lines of the rural militias, that arose in Central America, in the last quarter of the 21st Century"

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say here, but I am fairly confident that you are referring to The Knights of the Camelia, not Knights of Carmelia, right?

Governor Purdue is certainly no racist, and simply because one flies the older Georgia flag,
provides no evidence of racist ideology. Many Southerns truly hate slavery, but deeply respect the heritage of their ancestor, and in particular, thier heart-felt beliefs relaitve to "states rights." To generalize and stae that all "flaggers are racist" is untrue, dishonest and slanderous. Using that vein of thought, the American Indias could readily sate taht all "Americna flaggers" are racist, Indian haters. Not true. As Americans we do reaize that wicked, hateful and hideous actions were indeed inflicted upon American Indians...under the American flag. American however, choose to recognize past mistakes and strive to rectify the "sins of the Fathers." Yet we proudly fly the flag. For Southerners, it is essentially the same thing.

At this juncture, it would be ise for "anti flaggers" to forgive and forget, and for "flaggers" to use the Confederate flag in a very respectful manner. The same is true for Americna flags flying in staesw where we have Indian reservations. Wisdom in both cases neds to be exercised. Undrstanding, knowledge, true maturity (along with prayer) would certianly be of help too.

Thanks, be blessed

CH(LTC) Jeff Burnsed

one day people in this state are going to learn not to go with popular belief you are a disgrace to this state we may as well be on the road to communisom with the flag this is supposed to be a state that represents equailty how can you tell me that the confedrate flag represents equailty times change people try to live by gods rules and do the right thing but you my friend claim to be on the "right" side but where does right really preside in sonny purdue?

Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure he knows about punctuation.

The insistence of you people to fly a flag that
represents slavery, the Klan, segregation, and the dragging death of James Byrd from the Confederate Knights of America, who have confederate flag tattoos will have sordid, bloodly consequences for all involved.