confederate flag on the Georgia flag

[Dixon Carter Lee]

No, Havocman, it was treason. The land upon which the southern states governed is U.S. property -- they don't have a legal right to secede any soil chartered to them as a state by the Federal government. They can jump in a ship and go take over an island call THAT the Confederate States of America, but they can take half a sovereign nation and do that. The Confederate secession was theft of United States sovereign soil by citizens of the U.S. That IS treason. (How else do you define treason, but the implicit attempt to destroy the Republic from within? This has nothing to do with "the winners writing history". Don't be so obtuse and eager to latch onto pamphlet propoganda.) Illegal secession is not revolution, and it's not the best way to say, "Gee, we think we'd like to do things a teensy bit differently than you guys." It's treason.

[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 01-08-2001 at 01:12 PM]

 

[Havocman]

You're also right that the Civil War and the Revolution were fought by similar men and for similar reasons. But with this addition: the Civil War was fought over the issue of the right of people to own other people.

And that was wrong then as it is today.

Unless of course you're referring to my stable of sex slaves...I will definitely secede, conscript an army, and fight to the death to retain my ownership over them...

But I'm sure you weren't referring to me, now were you Ollie?

Havoc

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

No, Havocman, it was treason. The land upon which the southern states governed is U.S. property

Yes, Dixon it is US property. But it's also South Carolina property. The question of right all depends on the nature of the relationship of the states to the union under the Consitution. The Constiution says nothing implicitly or explicitly concerning the rights of states to secede from the Union. But neither does it forbid it. What it does do, however is require the ratification of the states in order to justify its authority. That's right. The states ratified the Consituition.

Is it that far of a leap to reason that because the states must ratify the Constitution in order to join the Union that they may also choose to leave the union. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment myself, but to say that argument is treasonous is a bit much.

And I don't find Havoc's evoking the argument of "the victors write history" obtuse or anything else but correct here. The Revolution: that was an act of treason. A group of free men holding no power in the English government attempting to split the colonies from the crown. The founding fathers had no right under the English Constitution. They found their right in the moral idea that men should not be governed without representation. But do we call it treason today?

 

[TonyG]

Keeping things in perspective, here is a shortened history of events entitled "Why the War Came" by historian D.Fehrenbacher.

Two weeks before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1861, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as President of a new republic and a rush to secession took shape. Why, because of southern rhetoric that his election was a declaration of war on the slaveholding states. An article in an Atlanta newspaper at the time reads "Let the consequences be what they may, whether the Potomac is crimsoned in human gore, and Pennsylvania Avenue is paved ten fathoms deep with mangled bodies...the south will never submit to such humiliation and degradation as the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln."

Reading the grievances listed by the seceeding states almost entirly concentrate on slavery. They state a fear that the Lincoln administration would; repeal the fugitive-slave laws, abolish slavery in the territories and DC, prohibit interstate trade in slaves and reverse the Dred Scott decision. Southern leaders even compromised their own states' rights by demanding Federal laws unreservedly protective of slavery.

South Carolina seceeded in Sept. 1860, followed by Mississippi on Jan. 9, 1861, Florida and Alabama two days later, then Georgia, Louisiana and finally Texas on Feb. 1st. That was it, the remaining four states did not seceed until after the war had begun. This crucial determination to dissolve the Union in direct response to the election of Lincoln was made by just seven state governments, which represented less than 1/3 of the free population of the entire South. Those same seven states created the Confederacy, framed its constitution and elected its President. It was from these states whose men came and opened fire on Fort Sumter.

Driven by fear, anger and pride the men of these states' governments forced a battery of hard choices on the rest of the country. The decisiveness of these men enabled them to shape the course of events to their liking. Their decisive behavior is the heart of the matter in any explanation of the outbreak of the Civil War, just as slavery is the heart of the matter in any explanation of that behavior.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Unless of course you're referring to my stable of sex slaves...I will definitely secede, conscript an army, and fight to the death to retain my ownership over them...
But I'm sure you weren't referring to me, now were you Ollie?

No one here is questioning the legality of sex slaves. In fact, if you happen to have have a few extra lying around, I'd be more than happy to take them off your hands for you. Wouldn't be a problem at all.

Tony: thanks for the great post. It's always nice to get a quick history review.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 01-08-2001 at 01:35 PM]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Nah. Big difference between a sovereign country splitting and persecuted colonies splitting. The Declaration of Independence was written to address just this concern, and its list of grievenances are fairly conclusive and give weight to the Revolutionist's moral and legal arguments.

South Carolina does notown its land. It own the right to govern there,w ith enomrous powers. But the states agreed to Consitutional government with a central ruling Federal government, from which their powers would emmenate. South Carolina land is the property of the entire country. If you want to take it away and start your own country, you have to ask. If you take it away by force, particuarly when your political arguments for doing so are so weak (oh yes they were), you are clearly absconding with U.S. property. Not to mention the people, the roads, the canals, the levies, the harbors, etc. etc. etc.

There really is no fine line here. The secession of the south was a treasonous act, and its symbol should never, ever, fly over a U.S. government building.

 

[Havocman]

Yeah Dixon...What Ollie said...

Although I may be rotund, I've never been called obtuse before...see what a bit of nose tweaking will get you...LOL

Anyway, as Marc Antony said, I didn't come here to praise Ceasar...Look Dixon, I was only trying to point out, that what you think of as treason, doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will. Context is everything.

I know of places where the U.S. Civil War still to this day is called the War Between the States, or The Great Rebellion, or The War for Southern Independence, and a few other terms...just as I'm sure growing up North of the Mason Dixon line you were taught it was The Act of Southern Treason, or the Great Treachery...eh?

As Ollie pointed out...there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution providing for, or prohibiting against the seccession of a state from the union....there was however a little thing called the Tenth Amendment that goes something like this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

How's that for "Pamphlet Propaganda"?

Hmmmmmmm...curioser and curiouser eh?

But don't worry Dix, I take no offense at your "don't be so obtuse" statement...we Southerners have always known what you Yankees think of our mental abilities...now if you'll excuse me, I believe I will go have a Julep on the veranda with my good friend Col. Clozeoff.

Col. Havoc

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Dixon, I think you might have missed my major point. I happen to agree with you that the ratification of the Constitution by a state implies the obligation of the state to give up any future right to break that contract and secede. But my point is that this question is far from clear when you actually read the Constitution. The idea of state sovereignty was much more popular then and is only a shadow of its former self today, largely because of successive victories of federalism, including the Civil War.

Once again, though, if you look at the situation in the context of the day, it's a very complex question. The Southern legislators who voted to secede sincerely thought they were the ones embodying the ideals of freedom and representative government.

Good posts.

 

[WriterDom]

Actually Havocman, the proper name for the Civil War is The War of Northern Aggression.

 

[Havocman]

Actually Havocman, the proper name for the Civil War is The War of Northern Aggression.

AH YES! How could I have forgotten that one...thanks WD...LOL

Just curious WriterDom, you willing to join my secessionist movement to keep your sex slaves?

Dixon
I also think that I should point out that I am in no way in support of flying a Confederate flag over any U.S. GOVERNMENT building. But I also think (in the true spirit of States' Rights) that the states themselves should be allowed to adopt any flag for their STATE GOVERNMENT and fly it over their STATE GOVERNMENT buildings...

If the people of that state don't like the symbol chosen for them by their representatives, then they can choose different representatives more in line with their way of thinking and have the design changed. Or petition their state government to put the issue to a vote of the people.

Democratic determination of an issue, instead of having things mandated from on high...what a concept, huh?

Havoc

 

[WriterDom]

A small island filled with sex slaves sounds good. Make sure we get enough to build and maintain a golf course so we don't get bored.

 

[miles]

You just don't get it...

It's hard to believe the arguments going on here.

Plain and simple: the current flag design was adopted in 1956 as a protest against desegregation by a bigoted, ignorant legislature (all Democrats, I might add). Why in the hell did GA wait almost 100 years to honor their "heritage"?

For those of you who don't know what segregation was like, imagine going to seperate and unequal schools, using seperate public restrooms, water fountains, and entrances to public buildings. It was commonplace to have two sets of rest rooms clearly marked "WHITE ONLY" and "COLORED". They even segregated the fucking blood supplies in hospitals! You sit in the back of the bus. You go to a restaraunt and they deny you service. Regardless of what the Constitution says, you do not have equal rights under the law. Do you think that might just piss you off?

Duhhhhhhh.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[jcgirl]

Personally I wouldnt have touched it. It symbolizes so many things. That is such a rich part of our history. Slavery was wrong yes, it was bad yes. But that is not what the confederate flag stood for. It stood for unitly, bravery, beliefs of fellow americans. Some of those beliefs were wrong. But as for the slavery what people seem to most forget is how many people died to abolish it. White men as well as black. Theres a better way to see it. Other than seeing only the wrong, see what it has done. It had white men and black men alike standing together fighting for what they believed in.

 

[Madame Pandora]

Gone With the Wind is shorter than this post....

Had to weigh in...

First, I don't think it matters when or why Georgia chose to "honor its heritage" by adding the Confederate symbol to their state flag. The fact is, they did, and enough people of the time wanted it there, or it would have been an issue long before now.

Second, I don't see the South as traitors, but that is probably because it is my heritage and I have difficulty seeing it in that light. I see it as a group of people who no longer wanted to be part of a larger union, and who chose to separate from it. If the overwhelming majority of Alaska wanted to separate from the US, I don't know that I'd have a problem with it. Lose the privilege of being a state in this union; lose the protection of its military and other branches of government. If they seriously want that, they should have it.

I also dispute that the South’s reasons for separation were weak.

Slavery? Hell, yes that was MORALLY weak, but it was also a fundamental base of their economy - if economy is a weak issue the last dozen elections in US history would say otherwise. And before we get on a moral high horse about ending slavery, it is important to note that the US supports slavery TO THIS DAY. We just don't support the outright ownership of US citizens. However, when you buy one of those cute little toys that says "made in X" for your kids, you are pretty much contributing to the slavery of underage children in any number of Asian countries. We didn't abolish slavery, we just hid it so we wouldn't have to look at it.

State's rights? I don't see this as weak, either. One of the arguments of the South was that the governing of the land was too decentralized. Can we honestly say that concern hasn't been fulfilled? Should the same laws in Idaho hold in New York? Some issues can be resolved at the state level, others are not. The problem was, when federal laws conflicted with a significant portion of the population it was supposed to represent, the issue was raised. Weak? I don't know. We still debate to this day about whether things like same-sex marriage and abortion should be handled on a state or federal level. I don't think this issue was weak, either.

Discussions on culture, prejudice, and heritage are such important conversations to me, not just because they broaden my view of individuals, but because they enrich my view of the world as well. In this issue, to me, the details are not important. I cannot help but know that I was raised in this country and the facts I learned as a child and adolescent are anything but certain. American History books have a way of scattering facts. But, the facts are not the beginning and end of this issue - at least not for me.

Some would claim that the Southern culture was based upon slavery, and as such, everything it stood for is corrupt. I cannot tell you how much exception I take to that assumption. In one fail swoop, it erases my entire heritage. It blanks out the names and the individual spirits of my ancestors. It dismisses their lives. I cannot accept this.

Slavery is reprehensible. There is no justification for it. But it has existed almost as long as the human race has been on Earth...and continues today in many different forms. Humanity exists even under the most brutal of circumstances. If "Life Is Beautiful" (sorry to use a film ref in a serious debate, but I think this particular film qualifies) had a message it was this. Even in the ugliest of all black places, the human heart survives.

It is so easy to say that all Nazis or all Southerners were evil. It is comfortable to think that. Because we don't ever want to believe that good people could allow such horror to continue. I see the humanity of both the victims AND those who inflicted such terrible action. I do not condone, and I certainly do not excuse, but I see it. And I know that these people had families and had loved ones. There are home movies taken by Eva Braun of Hitler playing with children. These were not propaganda tapes, but her personal vacation movies, only recently discovered. And she loved him. And, when you watch those tapes, there is no fear in the faces of those children. Even Adolph Hitler had a trace of humanity. Even he had people who loved him and whom he loved. The darkest of all human souls is not completely evil.

And, where slavery is concerned, we must also see that people who live in such conditions sometimes grow accustomed to that life. There are black women and men who served are caretakers of white families. And, I assure you, there was love there, on both sides. Ignorance does not replace humanity. It replaces intellect. By negating the South, you negate what they endured and their heritage and courage as well.

Of course, I do not pander to an illusion. There was also brutality and injustice on such a level as the human condition should not have endured it. There was murder and beating and belittling and a legacy of terrible hatred that still exists today. But I will not surrender MY understand of both sides to the intolerance of one or the other. I cannot. If I do that then I am bowing to ignorance. I am siding with the EASY answer. I am closing my eyes to the truth. It is EASY to say slavery is wrong and all Southerners were evil. It is EASY because that is the popular view of the day. It is as comfortable to say that now as it was to say slavery was right one hundred years ago. If I bowed to the easy view and abandoned the truth of my own heart, then I would be corrupt in the only place that matters. I would be corrupt in my own soul.

Truth is, no matter how many KKK assholes walk the streets, I do not deserve to my culture washed from history. I do not owe a slave's great-great granddaughter an apology because I am white. What I do owe her is my sympathy to her heritage as another human being - and my understanding.

THIS, and ONLY THIS is the where the argument to remove the flag carries weight for me. If I truly believed it was the PAIN of the black voters (or any voters) of the states that are demanding the removal of the confederate flag, then I would agree to take it down. But, I don't see it as an issue of pain. I see it as an issue of anger. An issue of politics, and that isn't right either.

A black man or woman, of any age could take me by the hand and say to me, "This hurts me, please, take this away." And I would pull it down myself. Because no symbol is worth someone else's pain. No physical thing is worth any iota of suffering to any human soul. But, I can guarantee you that I would reach back with my own hand and say, "I hurt for your pain. But, will you please listen to the love I have for this thing? Can we try to understand one another instead of ripping apart this symbol, which represents such vastly different things to the two of us? Can we look at it with both the evil and the good and accept that it is, just like the people it flies over, a constant contradiction of natures?"

Some look at a Confederate flag and see ignorance and hatred and cruelty and injustice. I see part of all that. But I also see my Grandmother's character, her customs, her heritage. I see humanity in that flag. Ugly messy humanity. People who did wrong, but who also lived and loved and had beautiful parts of their own souls as well. I don't know who else sees that. Maybe I am the only one...and Lord knows, that flag shouldn't be left to fly just for me. If I was to be truthful, I would have to say that I think symbols are wrong. I think it is a weakness of character to bestow sentimental feeling on an object. But it is a flaw I suffer from. Like nationalism. I wish I could reach in my heart and come up without pride for my heritage or my country. But I can't. I see the beauty in it. I also see the corruption and the ugliness. I see them as they truthfully are. I see them side by side.

People are flawed and society feeds these flaws. It is easy to follow, just as it is hard to be one voice in the wind. If the Jewish community rose up today, would we tear down the pyramids because they were built with slave labor? Does this dismiss the entire Egyptian culture?

My love for my heritage is unconditional. I see the ugliness and I do not excuse it, but I forgive it, as I have to forgive it. I will never ask someone else to forgive it, but I will ask them to understand it. I would ask them to see that there was still humanity in that ugliness. There was beauty hidden beneath the textbook condemnation. Just as Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss, there is usually some affection within every horrible sin.

Some say the flag should go away because of what it has become a symbol for. I say that is all the more reason it should stay. But, I would not want it to stay if I really thought it caused pain to others.

The simple fact of the matter is that the flag should come down the moment the majority of the people want it down. And, yes, it should have come down the moment a single human soul hurt because it was up there. But it shouldn't be dismissed and forgotten. There should be understanding, on both sides. Should have and reality are very far apart. And, if all people would see that, then there would be so much less anger in the world. If every black man could close his eyes and realize there wasn't just evil...there was flawed humanity, and all white men could close their eyes and feel the exquisite sorrow of those enslaved people, then the anger and the bitterness would be moot. But there will always be the ignorance on both sides.

Whether or not the flag comes down (which, I'm sure it will) it shouldn't be forgotten, and it shouldn't go without discussion and debate.

What an incredibly wonderful thread. Sorry I wrote a book. Those of you who stuck with me, thank you.

MP

 

[Juliangel]

Your welcome MP and it was a very good post.

 

[TonyG]

Some desperately needed history

about the Confederate flag.

The Republic of Confederate States official flag is shown below left. That which was adopted right after the first seven states seceeded. This is the flag which represents the issues of the south at that time.

The Confederate part of the Georgia flag has nothing to do with unity, strength, slavery or any other secessionist issue. That flag, below right, is known as the "Battle Flag" which was commissioned by Gen. Beauregard after the first battle of Manassas. The General was not able to distinguish his troops from those of the Union army because of the similarity of the Union and Confederate flags. It symbolizes battle not heritage.

http://www.palmetto.org/images/oldesouth/firstnat.jpghttp://www.palmetto.org/images/oldesouth/battle.jpg

 

[WriterDom]

AN ADDRESS BY AN EX-CONFEDERATE SOLDIER TO THE GRAND
ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC
by Maurice Thompson
(1844-1901)

I
I was a rebel, if you please,
a reckless fighter to the last,
Nor do I fall upon my knees
and ask forgiveness for the past.

A traitor? I a traitor? No!
I was a patriot to the core;
The South was mine, I loved her so,
I gave her all,--I could no more.

You scowl at me. And was it wrong
To wear the gray my father wore?
Could I slink back, though young and strong,
From foes before my mother's door?

My mother's kiss was hot with fight,
My father's frenzy filled his son,
Through reeking day and sodden night
My sister's courage urged me on.

And I, a missile steeped in hate,
Hurled forward like a cannonball
By the resistless hand of fate,
Rushed wildly, madly through it all.

I stemmed the level flames of hell,
O'er bayonet bars of death I broke,
I was so near when Cleburne fell,
I heard the muffled bullet stroke!

But all in vain. In dull despair
I saw the storm of conflict die;
Low lay the Southern banner fair
And yonder flag was waving high.

God, what a triumph had the foe!
Laurels, arches, trumpet-blare;
All around the earth their songs did go,
Thundering through heaven their shouts did tear.

My mother, gray and bent with years,
Hoarding love's withered aftermath,
Her sweet eyes burnt too dry for tears,
Sat in the dust of Sherman's path.

My father, broken, helpless, poor,
A gloomy, nerveless giant stood,
Too strong to cower and endure,
Too weak to fight for masterhood.

My boyhood home, a blackened heap
Where lizards crawled and briers grew,
Had felt the fire of vengeance creep,
The crashing round-shot hurtle through.

I had no country, all was lost,
I closed my eyes and longed to die,
While past me stalked the awful ghost
Of mangled, murdered Liberty.

The scars upon my body burned,
I felt a heel upon my throat,
A heel that ground and grinding turned
With each triumphal trumpet note.

"Grind on!" I cried "nor doubt that I,
(If all your necks were one and low
As mine is now) delightedly
Would cut it by a single blow!"

II
That was dark night; but day is here,
The crowning victory is won;
Hark, how the sixty millions cheer,
With Freedom's flag across the sun!

I a traitor! Who are you
That dare to breathe that word to me?
You never wore the Union blue,
No wounds attest your loyalty!

I do detest the sutler's clerk,
Who dodged and skulked till peace had come.
Then found it most congenial work
To beat the politician's drum.

I clasp the hand that made my scars,
I cheer the flag my foemen bore,
I shout for joy to see the stars
All on our common shield once more.

I do not cringe before you now,
Or lay my face upon the ground;
I am a man, of men a peer,
And not a cowering, cudgeled hound!

I stand and say that you were right,
I greet you with uncovered head,
Remembering many a thundering fight
While whistling death between us sped.

Remembering the boys in gray,
With thoughts too deep and fine for words,
I lift this cup of love to-day
To drink what only love affords.

Soldier in blue, a health to you!
Long life and vigor oft renewed,
While on your hearts, like honey-dew,
Falls our great country's gratitude.

 

[Madame Pandora]

Re: Some desperately needed history

about the Confederate flag.

The Republic of Confederate States official flag is shown below left. That which was adopted right after the first seven states seceeded. This is the flag which represents the issues of the south at that time.

The Confederate part of the Georgia flag has nothing to do with unity, strength, slavery or any other secessionist issue. That flag, below right, is known as the "Battle Flag" which was commissioned by Gen. Beauregard after the first battle of Manassas. The General was not able to distinguish his troops from those of the Union army because of the similarity of the Union and Confederate flags. It symbolizes battle not heritage.

The American flag was altered after different states were adopted into the Union. Does this make the current flag stand only for expansion?

The confederate flag altered. The battle flag itself was also altered for naval battles, because it couldn't be distinguished if it was being flown up-side-down.

Battle, incidentally, was a fundamental element of the Confederacy, and it was that battle which cleft this country into very bitter halves for a long time.

The Confederate flag, as it is today, carries with it not only its own purpose, but the purpose of the other flags which led to it.

A symbol often takes on what led to its creation as well as its own individual purpose.

MP

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[TonyG]

Re: Re: Some desperately needed history

Originally posted by Madame Pandora
...The battle flag itself was also altered for naval battles, because it couldn't be distinguished if it was being flown up-side-down....

...The Confederate flag, as it is today, carries with it not only its own purpose, but the purpose of the other flags which led to it.

A symbol often takes on what led to its creation as well as its own individual purpose.

Yes, the battle flag was altered but only in size, one for the infantry/cavalry, one for navy and one for the artillery units. It did not have a purpose other than army recognition, had no flags lead to it and was created because of the needs of battle. It was never used by the entire Confederate forces but, as I listed earlier, by the Army of the Potomac. Other Confederate armies used different battle flags, some even using their state's flag. It never symbolized unity and was not flown over the Confederate capitol.

The Republic flag was eventually altered to include the battle flag in the union area but again was not the secessionist flag.

[Edited by tony_gam on 01-09-2001 at 06:35 AM]

 

[Ambrosious]

Some thought from boortz.com (political pundit)

Yesterday was the opening session of that group of misfits known as the Georgia General Assembly. And what was the lead story? The Georgia State Flag. There he was, running true to form, none other than Tyrone (Shoelaces) Brooks introducing his bill to take the Confederate battle emblem off the state flag. Senate Majority Leader Charles Walker will introduce his bill today. On last night’s we were treated to old race warlords such as Joseph Lowery grabbing his place in the spotlight … demanding that Governor Roy Barnes get involved and get this thing done .. now! If he doesn’t Brooks and the rest of the warlords are issuing dire warnings of boycotts and such.

OK .. here’s the suggestion. Today every single Republican in the Georgia House and Senate should step forward and have their name added as a co-sponsor of Brooks’ bill And Walker’s bill. Every last one of them. Then the Republicans challenge the Democrats to do the same – to sign on as co-sponsors. All of them.

By the end of this day the Georgia Flag issue could become yesterday’s news! It would be completely moot == by the end of the day! Passage would be assured and the issue would lose all its juice!

Then the fun would begin. We could all sit back and watch Joseph Lowery along with Tyrone Brooks and Charles Walker and every member of the black legislative caucus flounder around like fish out of water. Their precious flag issue is gone. No need for more speeches. No hearings that could be used for grandstanding. No protest marches. It’s going to pass – big time! Now what? Will the civil rights professionals go after some more symbolism? Or will they get out there and do something that might actually make a difference in the lives of some of their followers!

Like I said --- the Republicans just aren’t gutsy enough to step forward and pull this off.

And now, taxes.

A week or so ago we were talking about the tax bite that burden’s the average American family.

Surely you don’t think your tax-paying is over after you’ve paid your state and local income taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, do you? Sadly, most Americans think that this is about where it ends.

Last year the Washington Post printed an article setting forth the cost of federal and local taxes to the common man. It took me a while to find the article and verify the information --- but here goes.

First, federal taxes represent about one-third, 33.6%, of the cost of every item you buy. This means that if an item costs $100, that $33.60 of the money spent for that item eventually ends up in the federal coffers. This means that federal taxes increase the cost of the item by 50%! [ Do the math. $66.40 + (66.40 x.50) = $99.60. ]

There’s more. There are still state and local taxes. State and local taxes take about 14.4% out of every dollar of the cost of an item. Add that to the federal share and you have 48% of every dollar spent for an item at retail ending up in some governments tax treasure chest.

Back to the math. That item you spent $100 for? Well, about $48 goes to government. That means the real cost of the item was $52.00. This means that throughout the manufacturing, distribution and sales process the item has undergone a 92% price increase just to satisfy the avarice of government. [ $52 + (.92 x 52 ) = $99.84.

Don’t forget your income taxes either. To come up with the $100 you need to purchase the item you have to earn about $166.00. Again – do the math. Take that $160 and deduct your income taxes – about 33% federal and another 6% state, and various payroll taxes, and you have (at a maximum) 60% left. $166 x .60 = $99.60.

So … you earn $166 and use it to buy something that costs $100. But about $48 of that cost is going to taxes. So --- out of your $166 in earnings you find that $114 ends up in some government checking account. Your TRUE tax rate? Well, how do you like 69 percent?

Just thought you would like to know.

That's why I don't care about the flag, and would like to see important issues taken up.

 

[WriterDom]

I say do away with the flag altogether rather than have taxpayer money spent to create new ones. There are 230 or so counties, who knows how many schools, posts offices and state offices. Take the money that would be spent on 70,000 or so flags and put a few more cops on the I-285 international speedway. What good is a state flag anyway?

 

[Closet Desire]

A clarification please...

The closest I ever lived to the south was Virginia so I can't claim any right to involve myself in this debate, but I do have a question. I read this morning on CNN that the Confederate flag didn't show up on the Georgia flag until the mid-sixties and then it was in direct response to Civil Rights rulings being passed down by the Supreme Court. If this is true then a lot of the arguments seem moot to me.

Any confirmation on this "fact" about when the flag was actually incorporated by Georgia?

 

[Ambrosious]

Re: Do your homework!

Until 1956 there was no confederate symbol on the GA flag. The GA legislature changed it in 1956 and added the stars and bars to protest the Supreme Court ordered desegregation.

Southern heritage my ass. The flag represents denying a segment of the population their constitutional right to equal protection. Period.

How in the hell can anyone be in favor of that?

Does that help?

 

[Closet Desire]

That helps...

... but I did do my homework, but most states don't teach the history of all 50 flags...at least...mine didn't (I grew up on the other side of ole Miss) and, it's sort of difficult to look up Georgia's history here where history stretches back thousands of years instead of a couple of hundred.

As for human rights, I'm with you. Georgia wasn't the only state to fight orders from the Fed. Mississippi fought hard and it ended up costing them in nearly aspect of life. Other states refused to do business with them, grants were denied. A high cost to pay for arrogance and prejudice, but a lesson still not learned entirely.

I'll sit back and watch...