Brad Warthen's Blog

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:

• Alabama's St. Andrew's Cross is said to be patterned on the Confederate battle flag or naval jack, although given its plainness, one could be forgiven for guess it was the other way around.
• At the time the boycott started, Georgia actually had the battle flag design incorporated into its state flag, although I believe that's no longer the case.
• Meanwhile, Mississippi's sovereign state flag STILL incorporates both the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag AND a representation of the Stars and Bars.

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?