Boooorring!

[packsaddle]

Bad Wolf, the house will not be as clear-cut as the senate was. That debate is ongoing.

A few days before the shooting, if anyone had polled the senate, there would have been scant support for taking down 'the flag'. So do you really think they changed their minds in the course of a couple of weeks? Unlikely. If someone thinks in those simple terms, I believe they do not understand THIS state government.

What I think more likely happened is that suddenly, 'the flag' became...NOT a toxic hot button of which to dispose....but rather it represented a profound threat to the structure of state government in this state.

 

Persons outside SC probably are unaware of the way this structure was formed and why. If you will read a rather turgid but very readable history of SC entitled, "South Carolina, A History" by Robert Edgar, you will realize that from the early days of the initial establishment of the plantation economy and system of government by the landed planter elite, there have been two continuous interrelated themes: the perpetuation of the "order and stability" of the colony (state) through the perpetuation of the elite.

This has produced the government in which the 'elite' find their way to the houses of government and power is established there and NOT in the hands of the governor (whose 'executive order' has as much 'weight' as the veto, that is to say NONE - just today the legislature overrode every veto on the budget that the governor had made, a result that has happened every year that the governor has attempted to exercise such veto 'power')

'The flag' was placed on the top of the statehouse, yes, as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but also as a symbol of resistance to anything (such as a black electorate) that would challenge the elite and the "order and stability" of the system.

Throughout the history of this state, from its early days of colonization by planters from Barbados and other parts of the West Indies to the establishment post-reconstruction Jim Crow laws, codes, and governmental structure, Edgar argues that the goal was always to maintain the "order and stability" of the government by the elite (and the profit that followed).

 

I had often wondered how things here could have gotten as 'messed up' as it is and when I read this history, everything began to fall into line. 'The flag' was symbolic of many things. And in 2000 when the legislature 'compromised' and moved the flag to a position in front of the statehouse, what they really did was pass legislation that further strengthened their hold on power in this state. NO ONE else has the power to decide the fate of historical things of any kind: flags, buildings, names, monuments, you name it. This move was recognized for what it was by the NAACP, hence the boycott was not ended with that compromise.

And TODAY, because of the national and international attention after the shooting...and the pain of loss of investment by multinationals in this state (read: loss of profit), they recognize that 'the flag' has not only become a financial liability, if they continue to stand by their previous 'compromise' the 'elite' themselves may be threatened as a result (read: threat to the "order and stability" of the present structure of government and society).

 

There is far more to 'the flag' issue than some rednecks in white robes using it as a symbol of racist hate. It has been transformed into something that, if left in place, threatens the "order and stability" of the status quo which has been guarded carefully from the very beginning. And in those terms, a senate who would not have even allowed legislation to remove the flag to 'see the floor' a few weeks ago...NOW has done an abrupt and rational about-face, knowing that to do otherwise WILL threaten that "order and stability". It was an easy decision for them. They do understand what is at stake. And it's not heritage or tradition that's at stake...it's the status quo of government by the elite...and profit.

[walk in the woods]

Bad Wolf, the house will not be as clear-cut as the senate was. That debate is ongoing.

A few days before the shooting, if anyone had polled the senate, there would have been scant support for taking down 'the flag'. So do you really think they changed their minds in the course of a couple of weeks? Unlikely. If someone thinks in those simple terms, I believe they do not understand THIS state government.

What I think more likely happened is that suddenly, 'the flag' became...NOT a toxic hot button of which to dispose....but rather it represented a profound threat to the structure of state government in this state.

 

Persons outside SC probably are unaware of the way this structure was formed and why. If you will read a rather turgid but very readable history of SC entitled, "South Carolina, A History" by Robert Edgar, you will realize that from the early days of the initial establishment of the plantation economy and system of government by the landed planter elite, there have been two continuous interrelated themes: the perpetuation of the "order and stability" of the colony (state) through the perpetuation of the elite.

This has produced the government in which the 'elite' find their way to the houses of government and power is established there and NOT in the hands of the governor (whose 'executive order' has as much 'weight' as the veto, that is to say NONE - just today the legislature overrode every veto on the budget that the governor had made, a result that has happened every year that the governor has attempted to exercise such veto 'power')

'The flag' was placed on the top of the statehouse, yes, as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, but also as a symbol of resistance to anything (such as a black electorate) that would challenge the elite and the "order and stability" of the system.

Throughout the history of this state, from its early days of colonization by planters from Barbados and other parts of the West Indies to the establishment post-reconstruction Jim Crow laws, codes, and governmental structure, Edgar argues that the goal was always to maintain the "order and stability" of the government by the elite (and the profit that followed).

 

I had often wondered how things here could have gotten as 'messed up' as it is and when I read this history, everything began to fall into line. 'The flag' was symbolic of many things. And in 2000 when the legislature 'compromised' and moved the flag to a position in front of the statehouse, what they really did was pass legislation that further strengthened their hold on power in this state. NO ONE else has the power to decide the fate of historical things of any kind: flags, buildings, names, monuments, you name it. This move was recognized for what it was by the NAACP, hence the boycott was not ended with that compromise.

And TODAY, because of the national and international attention after the shooting...and the pain of loss of investment by multinationals in this state (read: loss of profit), they recognize that 'the flag' has not only become a financial liability, if they continue to stand by their previous 'compromise' the 'elite' themselves may be threatened as a result (read: threat to the "order and stability" of the present structure of government and society).

 

There is far more to 'the flag' issue than some rednecks in white robes using it as a symbol of racist hate. It has been transformed into something that, if left in place, threatens the "order and stability" of the status quo which has been guarded carefully from the very beginning. And in those terms, a senate who would not have even allowed legislation to remove the flag to 'see the floor' a few weeks ago...NOW has done an abrupt and rational about-face, knowing that to do otherwise WILL threaten that "order and stability". It was an easy decision for them. They do understand what is at stake. And it's not heritage or tradition that's at stake...it's the status quo of government by the elite...and profit.

so basically you're saying SC is exactly the same as IL. and every other state in the union.

[packsaddle]

Egad, I was really hoping that somewhere, someplace...there might be something better........

I'd like to think that there are states with better standing with regard to things like domestic violence, infant mortality, education, standard of living, poverty, (need I go on?)...or as I sometimes mutter to myself, 'well at least there's Bolivia'.

[walk in the woods]

Sorry but IL has been run by the Chicago democratic political machine for decades. Oh we've had a couple of Republican governors but with the exception of two years our general assembly has been run by the same politican since 1984. He cut his teeth in old man Daley's machine. His daughter is the AG. Nothing happens in IL that hasn't been blessed by the democratic political elite in Chicago. That includes the gerrymandering of of congressional districts to eliminate conservatives to the advantage of connected elites. Of course we've lost representation in the last 3 or 4 census periods so they are pretty good at it. The good news is we have elected judges from the same political machine so the elites don't get much push back.

 

FWIW, 10 dead 40+ wounded in Chicago last weekend. One of the deaths was the young son of a gang leader. The father had been arrested multiple times. No confederate battle flags, orange chargers or legal gun owners involved. Mayor bemoans lack of family values and judicial leniency as problems. Duh.

Edited July 9, 2015 by walk in the woods

[packsaddle]

Thank goodness for Illinois.

[Rick_in_CA]

So it looks like the flag is going away for South Carolina. The house has voted to remove it. I personally feel its about time.

 

When that flag is displayed, it's all about context. The context for the flag flown above the South Carolina State house is all about racism.

 

When a museum displays the Confederate Battle Flag it can be appropriate. But when a state government displays it to intimidate black people, that isn't. And pretending that it's about "heritage" doesn't change that.

 

Germany has wrestled with this when it comes with displaying Nazi symbols. I remember going to an aviation museum and seeing WW2 German aircraft without the proper Nazi insignia. Instead there was a placard explaining that the original symbols were illegal in Germany.

[packsaddle]

94 to 20 on the third reading. I sort of agree with the 'heritage' argument except it's not the kind of agreement that those who tried to keep the status quo would like. The 'heritage' IS one of racism and desire for the days of segregation, all based on a solid and tragic foundational 'heritage' of slavery.

And the vote, after at least 60 attempts to amend the bill, rejected that argument. I give the governor credit for taking the lead on this. If she hadn't taken that lead when she did, this issue might have been delayed to the point that it withered politically and the status quo might have won the day.

It will be interesting to see if we move on to other issues that have more profound effects on - and importance for - the state.

Edited July 9, 2015 by packsaddle

[Stosh]

 The Civil War was not fought as a racism issue.  It was started by the South to preserve it's economic system based on slavery.  The North went to war not to abolish slavery but to preserve the Union.  They had a few abolitionists in the north threatening the South's economy, but not enough to sway any politicians.  For the first two years of the war Lincoln would have accepted the South's demands for slavery if they would only lay down their weapons and preserve the Union.  When Lincoln realized this wouldn't happen, he put out the Emancipation Proclamation, negating the legal hold of slavery on only those places in the Union that were trying to break it up.  Lincoln wanted only to disrupt the economy of the South enough it couldn't afford to keep fighting.  Slavery in general was NOT abolished.  Slavery was not abolished until July 28, 1868, three years AFTER the Civil War.

 

Civil rights for the freed former slaves was never resolved with the Civil War.  It only abolished slavery and all those former slaves could stay down in the south as far as the North was concerned.  This Jim Crow era lasted for yet another 100 years and wasn't legally settled until 1960's.  50 years later we still are aware of the issue.

 

The laws change overnight, the economic issues change, but take a lot longer.  People don't change much over the course of their lifetime, nor do they pass on much change to their offspring.  

 

Our Founding Fathers knew this was going to be a problem, but ignored it so that the southern colonies would join up with the others against England.  So it's been around for well over 250+ years here in America.  If anyone thinks that it's going to simply go away with some flag removal in SC, or some other legislative token gesture, guess again.  The world doesn't work that way.  

 

In many respects, people think that they have won some great and important issue with what they were able to do with a flag, but remember the flag also represents the rebelliousness of people and it may be gone from the SC capital grounds, but it's not going to go away anytime soon.  My brand new "Don't Tread On Me" flag is a testament to that process.  All that has been accomplished is the turning of yet another page of history whose future has yet to be determined.

 

A country based in racial slavery will never be able to overcome that legacy.  After all the Indians have it correct, The Stars and Stripes have flown over racial bigotry a lot longer than the 4 years of the Confederate battle flag. 

[Gone]

94 to 20 on the third reading. I sort of agree with the 'heritage' argument except it's not the kind of agreement that those who tried to keep the status quo would like. The 'heritage' IS one of racism and desire for the days of segregation, all based on a solid and tragic foundational 'heritage' of slavery.

And the vote, after at least 60 attempts to amend the bill, rejected that argument. I give the governor credit for taking the lead on this. If she hadn't taken that lead when she did, this issue might have been delayed to the point that it withered politically and the status quo might have won the day.

It will be interesting to see if we move on to other issues that have more profound effects on - and importance for - the state.

So now you know what's in the minds and hearts of the SC House? Please!

 

If you cannot recognize that the flag is BOTH a symbol of heritage AND racism, AND accept that people of good conscious and spirit can see that flag as a symbol of their heritage and NOT racism, then you will continue to be as closed minded as those who see it as a symbol of white power.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Stosh]

94 to 20 on the third reading. I sort of agree with the 'heritage' argument except it's not the kind of agreement that those who tried to keep the status quo would like. The 'heritage' IS one of racism and desire for the days of segregation, all based on a solid and tragic foundational 'heritage' of slavery.

And the vote, after at least 60 attempts to amend the bill, rejected that argument. I give the governor credit for taking the lead on this. If she hadn't taken that lead when she did, this issue might have been delayed to the point that it withered politically and the status quo might have won the day.

It will be interesting to see if we move on to other issues that have more profound effects on - and importance for - the state.

 

As I mentioned in the previous post, the Stars and Stripes has more heritage for racism than does the Confederate battle flag.  The Stars and Stripes as stood racially against Negroes, Indians, Irish, Chinese, Catholics (and other religious groups) and any "foreigners" in general over the years.  Pick any of the above and a quick check of today's media will produce at least one such indicators.  So the whole issue of the Confederate battle flag is nothing more than politically correct smoke and mirrors to keep everyone's attention focused away from the real problem we face.  It's nothing more than a media shell game.

[Rick_in_CA]

 The Civil War was not fought as a racism issue.  It was started by the South to preserve it's economic system based on slavery.  The North went to war not to abolish slavery but to preserve the Union.  They had a few abolitionists in the north threatening the South's economy, but not enough to sway any politicians.  For the first two years of the war Lincoln would have accepted the South's demands for slavery if they would only lay down their weapons and preserve the Union.  When Lincoln realized this wouldn't happen, he put out the Emancipation Proclamation, negating the legal hold of slavery on only those places in the Union that were trying to break it up.  Lincoln wanted only to disrupt the economy of the South enough it couldn't afford to keep fighting.  Slavery in general was NOT abolished.  Slavery was not abolished until July 28, 1868, three years AFTER the Civil War.

The war was fought over secession (the south to preserve it, the north to prevent it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. So is it fair to say the war was actually about slavery? And wasn't black slavery inherently based on racism? Therefor the war was fought because of racism?

 

Actually, you make a good point that the war wasn't fought directly over the question of slavery. If you asked a typical northern or southern soldier why he was fighting, secession would have been the answer, not slavery. But you can't divorce the secession of the southern states from the issue of slavery.

 

The south saw the writing on the wall. Slavery as an institution in the United States was an endangered one. It wasn't going away overnight, but the tide of opinion was turning. There was plenty of racism in the north (of all kinds). Just because someone was an abolitionist didn't mean they wanted a black family to move in next door. But the abolitionist tide was growing. When Lincoln was able to get elected president (from what the south perceived as an anti-slavery party) without carrying a single slave state, well that was the last straw.

[Stosh]

The war was fought over secession (the south to preserve it, the north to prevent it), but secession was all about preserving slavery. So is it fair to say the war was actually about slavery? And wasn't black slavery inherently based on racism? Therefor the war was fought because of racism?

 

If one wishes to carry it even further into unsubstantiated conclusions, a case could be made that the founders of the Confederacy were more honest with their hypocrisy than the founders of the United States.  

 

Going just on the written record of those involved in the issue.  The articles of secession spell out clearly that they were leaving the US because of the threatening treatment they were getting from the Northern states.  The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln championed an abolitionist platform.  Lincoln himself was somewhat of an abolitionist, but his solution to the problem was to send the slaves back to Africa.  He was a true racist in many ways. 

 

Actually, you make a good point that the war wasn't fought directly over the question of slavery. If you asked a typical northern or southern soldier why he was fighting, secession would have been the answer, not slavery. But you can't divorce the secession of the southern states from the issue of slavery.

 

That is correct, the articles of secession for all the states that acted on it all identified slavery as the issue for which they took action.

 

The south saw the writing on the wall. Slavery as an institution in the United States was an endangered one. It wasn't going away overnight, but the tide of opinion was turning. There was plenty of racism in the north (of all kinds). Just because someone was an abolitionist didn't mean they wanted a black family to move in next door. But the abolitionist tide was growing. When Lincoln was able to get elected president (from what the south perceived as an anti-slavery party) without carrying a single slave state, well that was the last straw.

 

Lincoln ran on the Republican platform of anti-slavery and was elected president by the lowest number of popular votes ever recorded.  The Whigs and Democrats couldn't get their acts together sufficient to pull off the electoral votes necessary.  So with only 1/3 of the country promoting abolitionism, Lincoln got elected.

 

The interesting thing about it all, had the South not seceded, slavery could have conceivably been kept well into the 20th Century.

 

But remember in reality the threat of abolitionism was not a racial issue, it was a moral issue that said Negroes were humans and should not be owned by another.

 

What is interesting is after the Civil War, slavery continued in the US territories.  The black Buffalo Soldiers of the US cavalry went in and put down a slave rebellion by slaves owned by the Indians.   It just further emphasizes the non-racial issue of slavery and the hypocrisy of the US government.

 

Keep it in mind that the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to former slaves and they were to be counted as such, but excluded Indians and women nonetheless.  Indians were not citizens so long as they were held in the concentration camps of the reservations.   Indians didn't get citizenship until June 2, 1924.   Women had gotten full citizenship only 4 years earlier (1920) when they were finally allowed to vote.

 

Kinda makes one wonder what the 14th Amendment was all about considering the need for all the Civil Rights Acts starting in 1957 and continuing through to 1991....  Slavery is an issue of slavery, not race.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Stosh

[Gone]

@@Rick_in_CA that's a HUGE simplification.

 

The states prior to the Civil War were concerned with the concept of nullification, not just about slavery but about ANY issue over which the federal government believed they had jurisdiction. This covered everything from natural resource rights, inter-state trade and commerce, international relations and other things which we, today, take for granted as being within the federal jurisdiction. Back then it was all within the states' power.

 

Let's not re-write history or try to over simplify things.

[desertrat77]

Under the pressure of national media attention and polarizing public opinions, politicians will always take the path of least resistance.

[NJCubScouter]

Under the pressure of national media attention and polarizing public opinions, politicians will always take the path of least resistance.

The path of least resistance? Over the past few days I saw a couple of tv interviews with South Carolina Republican legislators who were basically acknowledging that by voting for the removal of the flag, they were probably causing the end of their own political careers. That does not seem like the path of least resistance to me. It was more like they were being forced to make a choice between doing the right thing or continuing to do the wrong thing, with the entire nation (including their own voters) watching, and they were deciding to do the right thing. Those legislators were probably taking the path of MOST resistance.