The Confederate Flag

“In the 1950s and 1960s, the South tried to desegregate its schools and public accommodations, and what we’re seeing now is an attempt to desegregate our cultural symbols. I don’t think we’ve come to grips with it.” (Charles Reagan Wilson, director of the Southern Studies program at the University of Mississippi, in a 1993 interview. Applebome “South battling.”).

Early Days: A Developing Controversy

The battle over the “Flag” perhaps best epitomizes the different visions of where race relations are and where they should go in the state as we enter a new century. Nearly 100 years after the beginning of the Civil War, in the late 1950s, the South Carolina Senate put the Confederate Battle Flag in its chamber, and the legislature created a Confederate War Centennial Commission. Over the next few years there were a number of celebrations, most of which had little impact in the state. But as part of the celebration, the legislature passed a resolution to fly the flag on the dome of the State House in 1962. As one former legislator noted years later, “We did it to celebrate, not to divide the state.” But as another remarked, it was a different day. “White politicians only had to please white people, and the majority was plainly behind the system of segregation” (Eichel “Flag-raising,” 1999, A1, 9). In any case, the flag remained on the dome for nearly 40 years (Edgar 1998, 538). The flag that flew for so long on top of the State House was actually the naval jack, one of several flags used by the Confederacy. The flying of the flag became a source of controversy both within and without the state, and the subject of a long political battle that involved three governors, state legislators of both political parties, and the members of interest groups, including the NAACP and the state Chamber of Commerce. The battle was fought not just in the legislature, but also on the public relations front, with newspaper stories, letters to the editor in papers across the state, advertisements, marches and rallies, and sometimes the exchange of angry words.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, some legislators floated a series of unsuccessful proposals to take down the flag. In 1987, Attorney General Travis Medlock issued a legal opinion that the flag could be taken down (“Confederate flag debate,” 1994, A10). But it remained on the State House dome. Every year, the issue of the flag arose. Every year, efforts to find a satisfactory resolution failed (Brook “Flag compromise”, 1993, 1A, 8A).

After Alabama removed a Confederate flag from its capitol in 1993, South Carolina was left as the only state still flying such an emblem (Butler “Rebel flag,” 1993, 1A, 8A). Georgia had a Confederate battle emblem prominently embedded in its flag design for half a century. Governor Zell Miller made an unsuccessful attempt to remove that emblem from the state flag during his term of office. In 2001, Governor Roy Barnes signed legislation approving a compromise supported by civil rights leaders in the state. The new flag included a Confederate battle emblem as one of five small historical Georgia flags placed below a gold state seal (Butler 1993, 1A, 8A; Lahay 2001, A3; Bandy “Black leaders,” 2001, A3).

Late that year, in October, Medlock stated that the decision about whether to remove the flag should be made by the State House Committee, which had oversight of historic buildings (“Confederate flag debate,” 1994, A10). Ultimately, the issue had to be addressed by the legislature as a whole.

The Early 1990s: The Search for a Compromise Begins


By late 1993 politicians and business leaders were searching for an acceptable compromise on the flag question. The flag was bringing the state unwanted negative attention and publicity from around the nation. Business leaders expressed their concerns that businesses perceived South Carolina as racist and were choosing to locate elsewhere. Mayor Coble of Columbia expressed support for a compromise, citing some of the same concerns (Brook “Flag compromise,” 1993).

South Carolina’s state-level politicians were divided on whether the flag should keep on flying and how to resolve the ensuing conflict over the issue. African-American politicians such as Senator Robert Ford, who was elected to the legislature in 1993 on a platform of removing the flag, and Senator Maggie Glover, who was the incoming Black Caucus Chair in 1994, favored a compromise that would recognize both African-American and Confederate history, as did Senator Verne Smith, a white Democrat and descendant of a Confederate soldier. Senator Glenn McConnell, a Civil War re-enactor and chair of the Senate Rules Committee, worked with Ford, Smith and others to seek a compromise. McConnell attempted to sell the idea of a compromise to flag supporters in the white pro-flag community, while Ford made similar efforts with flag opponents (Brook “South Carolina Voices,” 1994, A8, 9; Brook “Flag compromise,” 1993, 1A, 8A).

Senator Ford brokered a proposal to replace the Battle Flag with the Stars and Bars, the first Confederate national flag. To McConnell, the Stars and Bars represented South Carolina’s battle for states’ rights, a position that Ford and Senator Kay Patterson, a sponsor of the annual proposals to bring down the flag, felt that they could live with. Other senators opposed making any changes at all  (Brook “Flag compromise,” 1993, 1A, 8A). African-American legislators also applied as much pressure as possible to Republican Governor Campbell, trying to force him to state his position on the issue. The governor claimed that he did not have the power to remove the flag (Butler “Rebel flag,” 1993, 1A, 8A). Although Campbell worked unsuccessfully behind the scenes for a compromise, in March of 1994, he expressed his support for flying the Stars and Bars (“Confederate flag debate,” 1994, A10).

A compromise proposal, the Heritage Act, passed the state Senate in 1994, but failed in the House (Butler and Bandy “Baptists,” 1996, A1, 7). The Heritage Act had been written by Republican state Senator John Courson, and it would be the basis for Governor Beasley’s controversial proposal to move the flag two years later (Scoppe “GOP voters,” 1996, B1, 3). The compromise would have removed the flag from the State House dome to another location on the State House grounds (Scoppe and Sponhour “Beasley losing,” 1997, A1, 10).


Ordinary South Carolinians were also divided on whether the flag should keep on flying.  A 1994 survey found that about half of South Carolina voters favored keeping the flag flying over the State House, while about one third favored taking it down (“About half,” 1994, B7). That same year, the question was posed to voters in the Republican primary. Voters there expressed a preference to keep the flag flying by a 3 to 1 margin (Surratt “Poll shows,” 2000, A1, 10). The question had been aimed at stimulating turnout, which it did, but the results made compromise more difficult for Republican politicians.

South Carolinians were divided on what the flag stood for as well. Many white South Carolinians argued that it symbolized their southern heritage. The Sons of the Confederate Veterans, an organization that consists of men who are descended from those who served in the Confederate armed forces, strongly opposed removing the flag, which they saw as an effort to destroy the culture of the South (Butler “Rebel flag,” 1993, 1A, 8A). The Preamble to the organization’s Constitution provided a sense of their feeling on this: “…the display of the Confederate Flag for which so many Southerners shed their blood…” (“What is the Sons”).  To those in the civil rights movement, the flag represented a history of enslavement and discrimination (Butler “Rebel flag,” 1993, 1A, 8A). African Methodist Episcopal Bishop John Hurst Adams summed up the view of the flag opponents: “They talk about heritage. It is a heritage of slavery” (Brook “South Carolina Voices,” 1994, A8, 9).

The Mid- 1990s: The Flag and Politics

By 1996, public opinion was beginning to shift. A poll conducted by The State Newspaper found that nearly half (49 percent) of South Carolinians now favored taking the flag down and/or moving it elsewhere on the State House grounds, and only 40 percent wanted to keep it on the dome (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16). In November of that same year, Governor Beasley, who had been elected to office as a flag supporter, announced that he had had a change of heart after praying and reading the Bible. In the interest of promoting better race relations, he now supported moving the flag from over the State House dome to a Confederate Monument on the State House grounds (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7; Askins and Carroll “Flag move,” 1996, A1, 7; Bandy “Flag’s fate,” 1996, A1, 21; Scoppe and Bandy 1997, D1, 5).

Reactions to Governor Beasley’s proposal were mixed. The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce and the Palmetto Business Forum both announced that they would support the governor’s proposal. Four former governors, two Democrats, John West and Robert McNair, and two Republicans, Carroll Campbell and James Edwards, as well as the entire South Carolina congressional delegation, expressed support for the governor’s proposals (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7). Republican Attorney General Charlie Condon, who had been elected in 1994 on a platform that included support for flying the flag, announced his disagreement with the governor, and suggested legislation to fight hate crimes would be more effective (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7). South Carolina’s religious leaders were divided as well, with some supporting and some opposing Beasley’s proposal (Askins and Carroll 1996, A1, 7; Askins and Click “Banner divides,” 1996, A1, 7; Askins and Click “The sound,” 1997, A1, 10).

Many within the legislature were not happy with the governor’s new position. House Speaker David Wilkins, a flag supporter, did not wish to alienate Republican constituents. But he was also hesitant to criticize a fellow Republican, so he took a neutral stance. Wilkins later indicated a willingness to meet with the governor and discuss a compromise of some sort (Bandy “Flag forces,” 1996, D4). Most African-American legislators indicated they supported the concept of a compromise, but were noncommittal about the specifics (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7). Democratic state Senator Darrell Jackson, a flag opponent who had supported a 1994 compromise, did not want the flag moved to another site on the State House grounds (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7). Eventually, the Legislative Black Caucus decided to support Beasley’s plan, although they would have preferred to have the flag moved to a museum (Bandy “Flag forces,” 1996, D4; Askins and Carroll 1996, A1, 7). Republican state Representative Jake Knotts, speaking for many ardent and uncompromising flag supporters, somewhat prophetically commented that “the governor shot himself in the foot” (Butler and Bandy 1996, A1, 7). Cynics suggested that the governor’s proposal was politically motivated, as he anticipated a challenge in the 1998 gubernatorial race from Democrat Joe Riley, the popular mayor of Charleston. Riley supported moving the flag off the State House dome (Scoppe and Bandy 1997, D1, 5). 

With the aid of the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Palmetto Business Forum, supporters of the governor’s proposal created a bi-racial, nonpartisan organization, the Heritage Preservation Commission. This organization conducted a grassroots lobbying campaign. But the opposition was still too strong (“Flag campaign,” 1997, 1A, 3A; Scoppe and Bandy 1997, D1, 5).

A number of pro-flag groups, some old, some new, many of whose members included both heartfelt defenders of Confederate heritage and extremists, appeared on the scene. These included the Heritage Preservation Association, which had played a lead role in the Georgia flag campaign, the Dixie Defenders, who ran a pro-flag and anti-Beasley advertising campaign, the Council of Conservative Citizens, the group that sponsored most of the pro-flag marches and rallies in the state, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (Pardue and Greene 1997, A1, 12). The pro-flag Southern Heritage Association began a lobbying campaign against removing the flag, mailing letters to all those who had voted in the 1994 Republican primary. Many legislators subsequently began to hear from flag supporters (Scoppe “GOP voters,” 1996, B1, 3). Most flag supporters, including many members of Beasley’s own party, were furious with the governor’s stand (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16). 

In a December 1996 survey conducted by the House Research Office, legislators indicated that they ranked moving the flag last among 32 issues likely to be considered during the 1997 legislative session (“Flag last,” 1997, 1A). With strong opposition in the legislature even before a bill had been introduced, many began to support the idea of a voter referendum (Scoppe and Sponhour “Beasley losing,” 1997, A1, 10). Facing the inevitable, the governor indicated that he could live with the idea of a referendum (Scoppe “Sparks fly,” 1997, A1, 9).  Almost all of the 72 sponsors in the House were Republicans (“A Flag’s Future,” 1997, D4). The proposal passed in the House but died in the Senate (Scoppe and Sponhour “As gavel falls,” 1997, A1, 6 ; Scoppe and Sponhour “Flag’s fate,” 1997, A1, 10; Scoppe “Let the public,” 1997, A1, 8; Scoppe and Bandy 1997, D1, 5).

Having lost, Beasley soon backed away from his proposal, saying “We tried our best” (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16; Scoppe and Bandy 1997, B1, 5).  Several days after Joe Riley stated that he would not run for governor, Beasley said that he did not think that the General Assembly would move the flag  (Scoppe and Bandy 1997, B1, 5; “Beasley doubtful,” 1997, B1, 9). Ironically, Beasley would later lose a re-election bid against another Democrat, Jim Hodges, in part because he had alienated so many of his supporters over the flag issue (Scoppe and Bandy 1997, B1, 5; Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16).

In 1997 the legislature passed a law giving themselves the sole power to move the flag (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16). That same year, despite the acrimony, the General Assembly passed legislation allowing the building of an African-American monument on the State House grounds. Other bills did not gain enough support in both houses of the legislature. The state Senate passed legislation that would have made Martin Luther King Day and Confederate Memorial Day legal state holidays (Edgar 1998, 569). Amid angry words, the House passed legislation that would have allowed special license tags with the flag emblem for the Sons of Confederate Veterans (Scoppe “House unravels,” 1997, A1, 10). But the flag issue was not resolved either that year or the next. 1998, after all, was an election year, not a good time to vote on an issue that divided the state’s voters.

1999: The NAACP Boycott

In July of 1999, the national NAACP upped the ante when it announced a boycott of South Carolina tourism at the request of the state NAACP. The organization’s attitude was articulated by state president James Gallman: “We can’t in good conscience come to a state and pour in money while those persons in power fail to act on our request to take down the flag” (Stroud “Group wants,” 1999, A1, 7). The NAACP hoped that an economic boycott would spark action by the state’s political and business community (“NAACP flexing,” 1999, 4A). The potential damage to the state’s tourism industry was alarming. State tourism officials estimated that African-American visitors to the state accounted for $280 million in expenditures, and that 4,800 jobs could hang in the balance (L’Heureux “Action could,” A1, 7).  Many white-dominated individuals and organizations were likely to observe the boycott, and the NAACP hoped that its impact would extend beyond just that of tourism (Stroud “Group wants,” A1, 7). 

The boycott caused mixed reactions. Some legislators, including some African-Americans who had supported removing the flag in the past, felt the timing was bad. Sen. Robert Ford expressed a concern that the boycott would just “…put a wedge in the racial relationship that we would never overcome…”  (Stroud “Group wants,” 1999, A1, 7). Others thought the boycott was necessary. Sen. Darrell Jackson, noting that he had long believed that eventually the flag issue would embarrass the state, commented that “somebody could’ve said the time wasn’t right to do an economic boycott of apartheid,” the system of racial separation that once existed in South Africa (Stroud “Group wants,” 1999, A1, 7). In early August, however, the Legislative Black Caucus voted to support the boycott (“A banner day,” 1999, D4). The white leadership of the General Assembly, both Democrats and Republicans, opposed the boycott and the outside pressure it represented (Stroud “Group wants,” 1999, A1, 7). Some legislators spoke of a compromise, although many were quick to add that it was not in response to the boycott. After meeting with state and national NAACP leaders, Governor Hodges agreed to request that House and Senate leaders poll their members on the flag issue. Both leaders refused to do so, with Lt. Governor Peeler, the presiding officer of the Senate, stating that he believed the flag should keep on flying above the State House. Much to the disappointment of NAACP leaders, Hodges declared that he thought the boycott would not work (Stroud “Hodges not,” 1999, B1, 5). Hodges, moving cautiously, was certainly aware that the anti-Beasley backlash had played a significant role in his 1998 election victory. He had previously indicated to flag supporters that he would sign a law moving the flag to “a place of honor” but would not take a leadership role in bringing it down from the State House dome (Carroll “Governor offers,” 1999, A1, 7).

Following the call for a boycott, a number of organizations decided to cancel or move meetings out of state. Among the first were African-American groups such as Greekfest Carolina, the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the state NAACP (“NAACP flexing,” 1999, 4A; L’Heureux “More groups,” 1999, B1, 5; “NAACP relocating,” 1999, 1A). The diverse list of groups that followed suit included Greyhound Corporation and the National Council of Teachers of English (L’Heuruex “Flag boycott,” 1999, A1, 8). The state NAACP announced a grassroots effort to have its college student members contact legislators, and US Representative Jim Clyburn, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, tried to build support from outside of the state. NAACP state president James Gallman declared  “The flag is a divisive symbol,” and said that the organization was in the fight “for the long haul” (“NAACP relocating,” 1999, 1A).

1999-2000: The Business Community and Interest Group Politics

It was unclear at this point as to whether there would be enough economic pressure for the boycott to have a significant impact (“NAACP flexing,” 1999, 4A). Sentiment among legislators continued to favor the flying of the flag (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16).  As Senator Tommy Moore, a Democrat who favored compromise, noted, resolving the flag problem would require the cooperation of business and religious leaders as well as politicians (Stroud “Legislators lean,” 1999, A1, 16). The support of all of those groups proved crucial in hammering out a workable compromise in the end.

As summer moved into fall, business organizations in the state began to work behind the scenes to resolve the flag issue. Major corporations in the state were beginning to pressure Republican legislators who opposed a compromise, and it was rumored that Commerce Secretary Charlie Way was helping to organize the process (Bandy “Why S.C.’s,” 1999, D1). By November of 1999, nearly 80 organizations were known to have canceled functions scheduled in the state. In Columbia alone, the Metropolitan Convention and Visitors’ Bureau estimated that around $2.3 million had been lost in cancellations (Jackson, “Chamber to consider,” 1999, G1). Officials from the Myrtle Beach Chamber of Commerce, which had voted to bring down the flag, complained that the city was losing conventions. Senator Kay Patterson put it quite succinctly: “When you start messing with white folks’ money, you get their attention!” (L’Heureux “The Flag,” 1999, A1, 10).

A State Newspaper reporter noted that more than just economics was at stake. It was South Carolina’s image, inside and outside of the state. But image also affects economics. The business community realized that an external perception of the state as racist would be very bad for economic development. South Carolina Chamber of Commerce Chair Paula Bethea Harper summed up the concerns of the business community: “We understand there are huge issues facing South Carolina and we can’t move on. We need to move into the next millennium. We’ve got to move into our future”  (Jackson “Chamber to consider,” 1999, G1). With its annual summit scheduled early in the month, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce stepped up to the plate and took a lead role in what would be the final battle of a long war. Harper announced that the Chamber, which had taken a position in 1996 that the flag should be moved elsewhere on the State House grounds, would discuss and update its position on the flag at the meeting (Jackson “Chamber to consider,” 1999, G1).

On the day before the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce met, Governor Hodges proposed a compromise on the flag issue in a speech to the Columbia Urban League. Hodges asked the NAACP to end the boycott, and said that in return he would urge House Speaker David Wilkins to facilitate passage of a Martin Luther King Day state holiday. Hodges also asked both sides on the flag issue to sit down together, and using the Heritage Act of 1994 as a starting point, develop a plan to remove the flag from the State House dome. Finally, the governor proposed establishing a South Carolina Heritage Museum that would showcase the history of all South Carolinians.

While the civil rights leaders present were not enthusiastic, business leaders were pleased with the proposals.  Harper stated that the Chamber would work with the legislature and the governor to develop an acceptable compromise (Carroll “Governor offers,” 1999, A1, 7). The NAACP, however, rejected Hodges’ call for an end to the boycott, and flag supporters responded by saying that this showed that the NAACP wasn’t serious about removing the flag (Carroll “NAACP won’t,” 1999, A1, 11).

At its meeting the following day, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce again voted to support moving the flag from the State House dome to another location (Jackson “SC chamber,” 1999, D1). That same week, the S.C. Baptist Convention, the largest denomination in the state, passed a motion asking the General Assembly to move the flag to another location. With this action, the Convention joined the United Methodists, the second largest denomination in South Carolina, in urging the legislature to move the flag. The Methodists had passed such a resolution three years in a row (Askins “Baptist action,” 1999, A1, 11).  A coalition of organizations that included such diverse groups and individuals as the S.C. Education Association and Bob Jones III in addition to local governments, business organizations, and religious groups, was forming. As political scientist Glen Broach noted, South Carolina had been “governed by elites most of its history.” It was unusual to see “a grassroots movement of diverse groups that are working toward the same goal”  (L’Heureux “The Flag,” 1999, A1, 10). Other political and community leaders and organizations, including the president of USC, the faculty of Columbia College, and other religious groups, also called for the flag to come down (Schweickert “More voices,” 1999, A1, A6; “It’s South Carolinians,” 1999, D2). In December of 1999, a number of former legislators who had been serving in 1962 when the flag was raised, gathered at the State House to add their voices to those urging that the flag be removed to another location, as Hodges met again privately with NAACP officials and leaders of the legislature (Stroud “Ex-legislators,” 1999, A1, 8; Stroud “Fix ‘oversight,’ “ 1999, A1, 11).

2000: The Politics of Compromise

In the January of 2000 State of the State address, Governor Hodges called for the flag to come down and be moved to another location on the State House grounds. Hodges, who had previously stated that the NAACP should end its economic boycott before negotiations proceeded, now made a different argument. “Sanctions can no longer keep us from doing what is right,” the governor told the gathered legislators. He argued that the flag should come down because “in its current location…the Confederate flag claims an inappropriate position of sovereignty” (“State of the State,” 2000, A9; Stroud “Take down flag,” 2000, A1, 8). Hodges did not offer a specific plan. Republicans responded by criticizing him for a lack of leadership, and some flag opponents, who did not want the flag displayed anywhere on the State House grounds, expressed disappointment as well (Stroud “ Take down flag,” 2000, A1, 8; Flach, “Flag shouldn’t fly,” 2000, A8). A few days later, 46,000 people gathered in Columbia and marched to the State House in an anti-flag rally (“Voices of a multitude,” 2000, D3). A few weeks earlier, 6,000 pro-flag supporters had staged a rally of their own at the State House (Stroud “6,000 attend,” 2000, A1, 10).

In the weeks that followed, the groups and individuals involved in the flag dispute floated various proposals, and held meetings behind the scenes. Proposals included moving the flag to a glass case in the Confederate Relic Room or in the Capitol building, placing it in an Avenue of Flags, or somewhere else on the State House grounds (Stroud “Move flag,” 2000, B1, 5; Stroud  “Avenue ‘ of S.C. flags,” 2000, A1, 12). As The State Newspaper pointed out in one of a series of editorials, there was “no lack of proposals” (“Flag ideas,” 2000, D2). In the meantime, additional groups supported the boycott, with several college sports teams re-scheduling events outside of the state (Gillespie “S.C. events,” 2000, C1, 8). Although some tourism officials found inquiries remaining high, more groups, including the American Bar Association and the New York Knicks basketball team, announced they would honor the boycott (Smith “Tourism businesses,” 2000, B1, 10).

As the flag battle moved into its final months, public opinion in the state continued to shift as well. An exit poll taken during the February Republican primary showed that Republican voters were split on the flag issue now, with 49 percent saying it should stay up and 46 percent saying take it down (“Hodges’ flag plan,” 2000, A8). Still, gaining the agreement of all the key players for a compromise was difficult.

The center of negotiations was the state Senate. Senator Glenn McConnell, who was reluctant to move the flag at all, was the leader of the flag supporters. If it was to come down, he favored removing the flag to a highly visible location, the Confederate Soldier Monument in front of the capitol building. Senator John Courson, another flag supporter involved in the negotiations, also supported this alternative. Opposing these two Republican senators were two African-American Democrats, Kay Patterson and John Matthews, both longtime NAACP members. Both the NAACP and African-American legislators found the McConnell proposal unacceptable. Another key player, Senator John Land, was a white Democrat from a black-majority district. He supported a flag removal proposal soon to be made by Governor Hodges. The final key senator was Wes Hayes, a Republican willing to support removing the flag to “a place of honor.”

  Hodges attempted to jump-start the process and break the continuing stalemate with a new proposal announced in a news conference, to place a smaller flag in a less visible location, and to guarantee protection of other Confederate monuments (Monk “Flag plan”, 2000, A1, 10). His proposal to place that version of the flag next to the statue of General Wade Hampton gained the support of some African-American legislators, but met with strong opposition from the NAACP. The Legislative Black Caucus did not endorse it, although some members said it was acceptable (Stroud “NAACP fighting,” 2000, B1, 3). The state Chamber of Commerce, which had not taken a position on any of the proposals, called Hodges’ plan “a very progressive compromise” (Winiarski “Hodges’ plan,” 2000, A10).  Hodges’ proposal was introduced into the Senate with 14 co-sponsors (Stroud “Senators may try,” 2000, B3). With the support of Senate President Pro-Tem John Drummond, the bill began moving forward through the Senate (Stroud “Panel salutes,” 2000, B1, 5). It would be one of several proposals addressed in March and April of 2000, before the crafting of a final compromise.

In the meantime, the House was considering legislation to make the Martin Luther King Day holiday a state holiday, instead of one of three optional holidays for state employees. African-American legislators were angered when Republicans amended the bill to require that legislators voting in favor of the King holiday also vote for a declaration that the flag was a symbol of heritage. Accusations over who was to blame for failure to pass a King holiday bill flew back and forth between the two sides. Representative Joe Neal, vice chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated that South Carolinians were “still not ready for prime time…we still have a lot of baggage from the 19th century and the 20th century as it relates to race and bigotry and prejudice.” Speaker David Wilkins did not agree with this interpretation. He blamed black legislators for the defeat of a version of the bill that would have created two separate holidays, one for Martin Luther King and one for Confederate Memorial Day (Stroud “King Day bill,” 2000, A1, 14). 

It was clear from this debacle that developing a compromise to remove the flag would continue to be a difficult task. Polls now showed that a majority of South Carolinians favored removing the flag from the State House dome. But reapportionment in the early 1990s had created a large number of white-majority districts, some with pro-flag supporters who made sure that their legislators knew they did not favor a compromise. At the same time, voters in black-majority districts would be sure that their legislators knew they wanted the flag removed from the State House grounds altogether. Many of those on the two sides were far apart on the flag and other race-related issues (Stroud “Legislative districts,” 2000, B1, 7). It would take another two months for the King holiday to become a state holiday, and it would be part of a compromise.

As the governor and business leaders lobbied, various proposals were floated in the Senate. Another flag bill had reached the floor. Supported by senators from the upstate, it proposed creation of a new S.C. heritage monument on the State House grounds (Harris “Gov. Hodges,” 2000, B3). Senators John Courson, the Republican who had written the 1994 Heritage Act legislation, and Senator Darrell Jackson, a Democrat, proposed the placement of two flags, the Confederate Stars and Bars, and the flag that African-American soldiers in the Union Army had carried, at the monument to women of the Confederacy. As negotiations proceeded and gained momentum, a third flag was added to the plan. Senator McConnell expressed his reservations over the Courson-Jackson proposal, which would encase in glass the flag at the Confederate Soldier Monument, referring to it as “entombment.” The reactions of other flag supporters were mixed, with some opposing it and some ready to find a compromise (Harris “Latest Confederate,” 2000, B1, 5; Stroud “Senate plan,” 2000, B1, 5). Other senators expressed support for the plan (Stroud “Senate plan,” 2000, B1, 5). The NAACP, while not endorsing the Courson-Jackson plan, announced that, unlike earlier proposals, it had “promise” (Harris “NAACP sees possibilities,” 2000, A1, 9).

In the end, neither the proposals advocated by Hodges or by Courson and Jackson gained enough support in the Senate to prevent a filibuster by opponents. Key senators, including four Democrats, President Pro Tem John Drummond, Majority Leader John Land, Legislative Black Caucus Chair John Matthews, Tommy Moore, and Republican John Courson, met privately to work out a compromise over several days during the second week in April. Senator Tommy Moore took a lead role in the negotiations.

A turning point in the struggle for a plan that could get enough votes may have come with a frustrated Senator Drummond’s comment, “I’m tired of all the flags…It’s not but one flag…” (Stroud,“It’s not but one flag,” 2000, A1, 6). Moore informed McConnell that there were enough votes to pass a bill that would place a single Confederate flag on a twenty foot pole behind the Confederate soldier monument. The Confederate flags in the Senate and House chambers would also go  (Harris and Stroud “NAACP eyes,” 2000, B1, 6). Senators McConnell and Ravenel, as well as other flag supporters, voted for the compromise, with only seven Republican senators voting no. Senator Darrell Jackson and the other African-American senators also supported the compromise, despite the opposition of the NAACP (Stroud “Senate votes,” 2000, A1, 13; Stroud, “It’s not but one flag,” 2000, A1, 6). Election year politics may have also played a role. Seventeen of 23 senators who voted for the compromise had no challengers in their bids for re-election, including four of the African-American senators (Stroud “Re-elections complicate,” 2000, B1, 5). Two politicians who had worked behind the scenes held differing views on the compromise. Governor Hodges expressed his support for the Senate plan, and US Representative Jim Clyburn expressed his opposition (Davis “Clyburn opposed,” 2000, B3).

The legislation now moved to the House, which had just voted in favor of creating both a Martin Luther King Day and a Confederate Memorial Day holiday  (Harris “Senate votes,” 2000, A1, 15). A number of House members had said that a flag bill like the one passed by the Senate was the only such bill they could support (Stroud, “Senate votes,” 2000, A1, 13). Speaker David Wilkins and fellow Republicans introduced a similar measure to the bill passed by the Senate (Stroud and Harris “House Republicans,” 2000, A1, 8).

In the House, early efforts to kill the flag bill or derail it with a voter referendum failed. After quickly moving through the Judiciary Committee, a flag bill reached the House floor, where the battle would ensue. Opponents planned to use delaying tactics so that the House would not have time to vote before the session ended (Stroud “House floor,” 2000, B3; “Flag compromise,” 2000, 1A, 5A; Stroud “Flag plan,” 2000, A1, 7). With 76 House members facing no significant opposition for re-election, it appeared that it would be easier for House members to vote for a compromise on the flag. But many House members still opposed the compromise, some because they did not want to move the flag and some because they felt the flag would still hold too prominent a position. Some also feared the long memory of the voters in the next election, although a new poll showed that more than half of the voters favored taking down the flag (Stroud “Re-elections,” 2000, B1, 5; “Poll shows,” 2000, 4A).

A headcount showed that there was not enough support to pass the Senate plan. Once again, members and other politicians floated competing plans. A number of Democrats supported placing a bronze Confederate flag cast on granite by the Confederate Soldier Monument (Stroud, “Democrats back,” 2000, A1, 7). Although the NAACP had not endorsed this proposal, House Minority Leader Gilda Cobb-Hunter said NAACP endorsement was not required (“House expecting,” 2000, B3). “The norm in South Carolina politics would be for state leaders to address problems in a kind of quiet way,” said political scientist Earl Black. But the flag issue had attracted national attention as a result of the NAACP boycott. So the House debate was carried live on television, radio, and the Internet (Stroud “Flag debate,” 2000, A1, 10).

In an early vote, the House defeated both major compromise plans (Stroud “House votes,” A1, 12). Behind the scenes, Governor Hodges met with key legislators, testing different compromise proposals. Any vote would be close. The 26 black legislators would oppose any bill that gave the flag a prominent position. A group of 39 or 40 pro-flag lawmakers, mostly Republicans, wanted to keep the flag flying on the State House dome. Both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans would be likely to support a compromise in the end (Monk “Flag debate,” 2000, A1, 13).  Meanwhile, Attorney General Condon, a flag supporter, pushed for a vote to hold a flag referendum at the Republican Party’s upcoming convention, despite the objections of both House leaders and former governor Campbell (Bandy “Condon: Flag stance,” 2000, A1, 12).

After two days of debate, the House passed a bill very similar to the Senate’s compromise bill by a vote of 63-56. Speaker David Wilkins threw his support behind the bill, citing the importance of the decision (Stroud “House votes,” 2000, A1, 17). Only three African-American legislators voted for the compromise, working instead with flag supporters to try to defeat the bill. The House version specified that the flag would fly on the pole at a height of 30 feet, instead of 20, and that there would be lighting (“Coming down,” 2000, 1A, 6A).  State NAACP President Gallman called the plan an “insult,” and Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, who had led an anti-flag march the previous month, asked legislators to substitute yet another flag plan (Harris “NAACP says,” 2000, A1, 8). More than 100 amendments had been offered during the debate. Ironically, the House passed the bill on the state’s first official Confederate Memorial Day (Stroud “House votes,” 2000, A1, 17). Another bill, proposed by moderates with little notice, would have established an “outdoor military museum,” and allowed the flag to fly just one day a year, on Confederate Memorial Day. But the bill was voted down by the coalition of black legislators and white flag supporters. Many African-Americans opposed flying the flag even one day a year, and flag supporters were determined to maintain the status-quo (Monk “This vote,” 2000, A1, 18).

The ball was now in the court of the Senate. Although several senators proposed further tinkering, the final issue came down to a question of how high the flag would fly. The Senate passed an amended version that would fly the flag at a height of 25 feet, a compromise between the 30 feet the House wanted and the 20 feet the Senate wanted (Stroud “Modified flag bill,” 2000, A1, 6). In a House-Senate conference, legislators restored the House’s version of a height of 30 feet, but eliminated legal sanctions for flag desecration. Senator Darrell Jackson, the sole African-American on the conference committee, agreed to the House version, stating “It was a matter of, was I willing to go home with nothing, or would 5 feet separate us from having a deal or not having a deal” (Stroud “Compromise,” 2000, A1, 8). Six of seven African-American senators voted in favor of the bill, but only four of twenty-six African-American House members supported it (Stroud “Compromise,” 2000, A1, 8).

July 2000: Moving the Flag

Although neither side was entirely happy with the compromise, in the end, the flag came down. On July 1, 2000, at a ceremony in front of the State House, two Citadel cadets lowered the flag from the dome and handed it to the governor, who gave it to officials from the State Museum, where it would be displayed. Immediately afterwards, Civil War re-enactors raised a slightly different, square battle flag on a 30-foot pole that stood behind the Confederate Soldier Monument in front of the State House.

Emotions ran high. Citizens all over the state watched live on South Carolina Educational Television. About 3,000 people watched the ceremonies in person, some booing and some cheering each activity. Flag opponents held signs with the word “shame” written in capital letters. Supporters shouted “Off the dome and in your face.” Members of the NAACP, which opposed the compromise, marched quietly to protest the placing of the battle flag in front of the State House. Some flag supporters, kept back by police, shouted racial slurs as the marchers went by. It may have been only due to the police presence that there was no violence (Bandy and Burris “Emotions run,” A1, 11). The NAACP vowed to keep the boycott in force (Stroud and Harris “Amid pomp,” A1, 11). Members of the legislature, the state Chamber of Commerce, and most of the public seemed ready to move on. The state Chamber of Commerce did not even include the flag on its legislative agenda for 2001 (Lam 2001, 3). As one legislator commented prior to the flag vote, “ My people in my district aren’t telling me they want it up or they want it down. They’re telling me they want all this over with”  (Eichel “NAACP would,” 2000, B6).

It is unlikely that the flag would have come down without the NAACP boycott and the resulting pressure from the business community. A couple of weeks after the NAACP first announced the boycott, area newspapers polled about 70 percent of the legislature. The poll results, which did not include 15 African-Americans, showed that a majority of those contacted wanted to keep the flag flying. In the end, the boycott had cost the state’s tourism industry millions of dollars, cancellation of four movies scheduled for filming, and a host of unfavorable publicity. After the compromise took effect, tourism officials noted that visitors were no longer canceling and there were no new inquiries about the boycott from out of state, even though an NCAA boycott remained in effect (L’Heureux “Boycott,” 2000, A10). As many observers noted, healing would be difficult. In an editorial, The State Newspaper observed, “The flag is merely a symptom of a larger rift in South Carolina…moving the flag is merely a symbolic gesture” (“S.C. must make best,” 2000, D2). Regardless, the issue seemed to have run its course. Most people, inside and outside of the state, wanted an end to the flag debate. Like the Civil War itself, some issues can only be settled when the protagonists are totally exhausted.

Aftermath: Race, Heritage, and the Flag

But many South Carolinians still want to fly the flag. In March of 2001, a southern heritage group, the League of the South, placed flags on the highway right of way in Anderson and near Easley. According to their spokesperson, this particular flag was not a Confederate flag, but rather one of similar appearance that they referred to as a South Carolina Sovereignty flag. The organization felt it was appropriate to place such flags on the stretch of highway dedicated to the memory of John C. Calhoun, a nineteenth century states’ rights supporter. The state Transportation Department later removed the flags, which were placed illegally on a highway right of way, at the request of the Pickens County legislative delegation. The League of the South said it would try to get the flags placed at the Calhoun Memorial again (“Around the Carolinas,” 2002, B2). At times the debate gets emotional.

An incident that occurred in the City of Aiken, a relatively cosmopolitan small city in the western part of the state, is another sign of the times. In July of 2001, the Sons of the Confederate Veterans asked the City Council for permission to fly three Confederate flags and a state flag at the city’s memorial for the Confederate war dead for one day. The purpose was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the city’s monument. The City Council denied the request (Burton “Banner banned,” 2001, 1A, 6A). In the ensuing controversy, The Aiken Standard editorial board supported the Sons of the Confederate Veterans’ request on free speech grounds, while acknowledging the parallels with the raising of the Confederate flag over the State House in 1961 (“Flag request,” 2001, 4A). A few days later, members of the League of the South staged a protest, carrying a Confederate flag, in front of the Aiken Municipal Building. The group stated that their  “only purpose was to honor our ancestors” (Burton “Protestors fly,” 2001, 1A, 6A). Members of the group protested and engaged in flag-waving for about a week (Burton “Monumental,” 2001, 1A, 7A). About a week later, Attorney General Charlie Condon issued an opinion that the City Council may have erred in denying the permit to display the flag (Lord 2001, 1A, 7A). On a Sunday afternoon late in July, about 400 people attended a ceremony in commemoration of the memorial. After the ceremony was over, a wreath containing two Confederate flags remained (Burton “Monumental,” 2001, 1A, 7A). Some members of the crowd, said to belong to the Heritage Coalition, also placed a thirty foot flagpole in quick-drying cement in defiance of the City Council action, to raise the flag. The city removed the flag and flagpole shortly afterward. Members of the group indicated that they intended to file a lawsuit over the City Council’s ruling (Burton “Flag flap,” 2001, 1A, 7A).

The flag now flies on the State House grounds near the Confederate Soldier monument. It is located about 200 feet from the African-American Monument.  Photo by Bob Botsch.

Emotions continue to run high, and the flag continues to be a symbol of what divides South Carolinians. In December of 2001, stories about the flag once again appeared on the pages of South Carolina’s newspapers. This time, the issue was whether to fly a flag made of nylon or cotton. A group of senators, including Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, requested that a nylon flag replace the cotton one. The flag compromise law did not specify what kind of material would be used. Some flag opponents preferred the cotton flag because the heavy material does not readily blow in the wind, and it is less visible from the street. Senator Darrell Jackson said that he and other legislators had been told at the time of the compromise that “ it would be very difficult for that flag to fly in the wind because of the weight” (Bauerlein “Change waves,” 2001, A1). For that same reason, some flag supporters, including McConnell, favored a nylon flag. The lightweight material would be more visible, and in addition, the colors would not run when it rained. As an editorial writer for The State Newspaper facetiously remarked, ”contrary to popular misconceptions that it was technologically disadvantaged, the Confederacy was way ahead of its times – at least in the production of synthetic fabrics.” Of course, the original flags during the Civil War were made of cotton. As Senator John Courson, a flag supporter, said, “Cotton is authentic.” Courson preferred to retain a cotton flag for that reason (Warthen 2001, D2). This tempest in a teapot was resolved when all parties agreed on a cotton-silk blend. An observer of the recurring flag issue may be reminded of the movie “Groundhog Day,” where the participants relive the same series of events again and again! In all likelihood, the flag will continue to be an issue for South Carolinians as long as it flies on the State House grounds.

                                                                                                                                    Carol Sears Botsch


A shorter version of this article will appear in a chapter on “Minorities in SC Politics” in Charlie B. Tyer (editor) South Carolina Government: A Policy Perspective (Columbia, SC: Institute for Public Service and Policy Research), forthcoming (2003). Used with permission.

A number of cartoonists have given their take on the Confederate Flag. Click on the link to this website and scroll through the editorial cartoons. Permission of individual cartoonists is needed to download or reproduce the pictures.


“A banner day for Robert Ford.”  The State Newspaper (August 8, 1999): D4.

“A Flag’s Future.” The State Newspaper (January 26, 1997): D4.

“ ‘A historic moment on a historic day.’ “ The State Newspaper (May 11, 2000): A15.

“A Historic, drawn-out process.” The State Newspaper (August 12, 2001): D1.

“About Half of S.C. Voters Favor Flying Flag, Poll Finds.” The State Newspaper   (August 6, 1994): B7.

Applebome, Peter. “South battling over symbols.”  The State Newspaper (January 28, 1993): 14A.

“Around the Carolinas.” The State Newspaper (March 17, 2002): B2.

Askins, Allison. “Baptist action key to anti-flag alliance.” The State Newspaper   (November 14, 1999): A1, 11.

Askins, Allison, and Chuck Carroll. “Flag move gets caucus support.”  The State Newspaper (December 24, 1996): A1, 7.

Askins, Allison, and Carolyn Click. “Banner divides pastors.”  The State Newspaper (December 12, 1996): A1, 7.

________. “The Sound of Silence.”  The State Newspaper (January 22, 1997): A1, 10.

Bandy, Lee. “Beasley sees roads past flag.”  The State Newspaper (January 23, 1997): A1, 7.

________. “Black leaders in S.C. praise compromise.”  The State Newspaper   (February 1, 2001): A3.

________. “Compromise at last.”  The State Newspaper (May 19, 2000): A1, 9.

________. “Condon: Flag stance hurts GOP.” The State Newspaper (May 10, 2000): A1, 12.

________. “Critics shred governor’s flag proposal.”  The State Newspaper (November 12, 1999): A1, 11.

________. “Flag’s fate quiet debate in Camden.”  The State Newspaper (December 26, 1996): A1, 21.

________. “Flag forces are waiting on Wilkins.”  The State Newspaper   (December 29, 1996): D4. 

________. “Why S.C.’s Confederate flag will fall.”  The State Newspaper (October 31, 1999): D1.

 Bandy, Lee and Roddie Burris. “Emotions run high on both sides, but officers keep situation in control.”  The State Newspaper (July 2, 2001): A1, 11.

________. “Granite, bronze and triumph.”  The State Newspaper  (March 25, 2001): A1, 18.

Bauerlein, Valerie. “Change waves red flag.” The State Newspaper (December 7, 2001): A1, 6.

Bauerlein, Valerie, and Aaron Sheinin. “Cotton-silk mix may end flag flap.” The State Newspaper (January 24, 2002): A1, 5.

“Beasley doubtful of flag settlement.” The State Newspaper (March 9, 1997): B1, 9.

Bolton, Warren. “Flag resolution showed blacks they still have a struggle ahead.”  The State Newspaper (June 30, 2000): A8.

________. "Much work left to be done, despite calm on Confederate flag front."  The State Newspaper   (December 29, 2000): A 14.

________. “South Carolina’s racial pot was boiling before call to remove flag.”  The State Newspaper (May 27, 2000): A8.

Brook, Nina. “Flag compromise support grows.”  The State Newspaper (October 18, 1993): 1A, 8A.

________. “South Carolina Voices.”  The State Newspaper   (October 16, 1994): A8, 9.

________. “We are coming together and we’re talking.” The State Newspaper   (October 16, 1994): A1.

Burton, Adam. “Banner banned by city.”  The Aiken Standard (July 10, 2001): 1A, 6A.

________. “Flag flap continues.”  The Aiken Standard  (July 25, 2001): 1A, 7A.

________. “Monumental demonstration.”  The Aiken Standard (July 25, 2001): 1A, 7A.

________. “Protestors fly flag at Aiken complex.”  The Aiken Standard (July 13, 2001): 1A, 6A.

Butler, Pat. “Rebel flag still spurs battle cries.”  The State Newspaper (May 30, 1993): 1A, 8A.

Butler, Pat, and Lee Bandy. “Baptists on flag: furl it.”  The State Newspaper (November 13, 1996): A1, A7.

Carroll, Chuck. “NAACP won’t end boycott.”  The State Newspaper (November 12, 1999): A1, 11.

Chang, Alicia. “Controversial Bessinger goes online to sell sauce.” The State Newspaper (May 31, 2002): B7.

Clyburn, James.  “All Sides of Flag Issue Should Declare Moratorium on Further Sparring.”  The State Newspaper (July 27, 2000): A11.

Collier, Joe Guy. “Flag supporters blast critics.”  The State Newspaper (August 27, 2000): B1, 5.

“Coming down: House agrees to move flag.” The Aiken Standard (May 11, 2000): 1A, 6A.

“Confederate flag debate: A Chronology.” The State Newspaper (October 16, 1994): A10.

Davis, Michelle R. “Clyburn opposed to Senate’s flag compromise.” The State Newspaper (April 27, 2000): B3.

________.  “NAACP Chief Blasts S.C. on Flag.”  The State Newspaper (July 11, 2000): A1, 5.

Edgar, Walter. South Carolina: A History. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1998

Eichel, Henry. “Flag-raising in 1962 for ‘reliving history.’ “ The State Newspaper (November 7, 1999): A1, 9.

________. “NAACP would keep boycott if flag bill passes, but with what support?”  The State Newspaper (May 7, 2000): B6.

Flach, Tim. “Flag shouldn’t fly anywhere on Capitol grounds, some say.”  The State Newspaper (January 20, 2000): A8.

“Flag campaign begins.” The Aiken Standard (January 7, 1997): 1A, 3A.

“Flag compromise hits judiciary committee.” The Aiken Standard (April 26, 2000): 1A, 5A.

“Flag ideas abound; let’s debate the issue.”  The State Newspaper (February 6, 2000): D2.

“Flag last on list in House.” The Aiken Standard (January 16, 1997): 1A.

“Flag request is reasonable.” The Aiken Standard (July 11, 2001): 4A.

French, Amy. “Patrols get boost from NAACP leader.” The State Newspaper (April 21, 2002): B1, 5.

Gillespie, Bob. “League culls flag from logo.”  The State Newspaper   (April 29, 2001): A1, A9.

________. “S.C. events affected by flag debate.”  The State Newspaper (February 5, 2000): C1, 8.

“Gov. Hodges’ first steps on flag are encouraging.” The State Newspaper (August 8, 1999): D2.

Hardy, Cynthia Pryor. “Lawmakers Settled for Quick Fix on the Confederate Flag Issue.”  The State Newspaper (May 26, 2000): A17.

Harris, Kenneth A. “Cobb-Hunter boycotts monument ceremony.” The State Newspaper (March 30, 2001): A12.

–_______. “Gov. Hodges asks business leaders to push for resolution.” The State Newspaper (March 24, 2000): B3.

________. “Hodges signs King bill.”  The State Newspaper (May 2, 2000): A1, 5.

________. “Latest Confederate flag plan raises hope, but has critics.” The State Newspaper (March 24, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “NAACP says it’s ‘insulted’ by flag plan.” The State Newspaper (May 13, 2000): A1, 8.

________. “NAACP sees possibilities in flag plan.”  The State Newspaper (March 28, 2000): A1, 9.

Harris, Kenneth A. and Joseph S. Stroud. “NAACP eyes increasing sanctions.”  The State Newspaper (April 15, 2000): B1, 5.

“Hodges’ flag plan could lead state to resolution.” The State Newspaper (February 22, 2000): A8.

 “House expecting lots of flag amendments.” The State Newspaper (May 5, 2000): B3.

Harris, Kenneth A. “Cobb-Hunter boycotts monument ceremony.” The State Newspaper (March 30, 2001): A12.

 (May 2, 2000): A1, 5.

________. “Latest Confederate flag plan raises hope, but has critics.” The State Newspaper (March 24, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “NAACP says it’s ‘insulted’ by flag plan.” The State Newspaper (May 13, 2000): A1, 8.

________. “NAACP sees possibilities in flag plan.”  The State Newspaper (March 28, 2000): A1, 9.

Harris, Kenneth A. and Joseph S. Stroud. “NAACP eyes increasing sanctions.”  The State Newspaper (April 15, 2000): B1, 5.

 “Hodges’ flag plan could lead state to resolution.” The State Newspaper (February 22, 2000): A8.

Holland, Jennifer. "Fastest-growing town also reflects the state’s diversity."  The State Newspaper online (March 17, 2001): <> Accessed March 20, 2001.

 “House expecting lots of flag amendments.” The State Newspaper (May 5, 2000): B3.

Jackson, Darrell. “Flag Compromise Offers Reconciliation.”  The State Newspaper (April 23, 2000): D3.

Jackson, C. Grant. “Chamber to consider flag issue.”  The State Newspaper (November 7, 1999): G1.

________. “S.C. chamber endorses moving flag.” The State Newspaper   (November 12, 1999): D1.

Lahay, Patricia M. “Georgia raises new flag.” The State Newspaper (February 1, 2001): A3.

Lam, Stacy. “Confederate flag not even blip on legislative agenda.” The State Newspaper Columbia Business Journal  (January 8, 2001): 3.

“Last thing S.C. House needs is more racial strife.” The State Newspaper (November 21, 2000): A10.

L’Heureux, Dave. “Action could cost the state millions.”  The State Newspaper (July 16, 1999): A1, 7.

________. “Boycott may lose its punch.”  The State Newspaper (July 2, 2000): A10.

________. “The Flag.”  The State Newspaper (November 4, 1999): A1, 10.

________. “Flag boycott has cost S.C. at least 79 events.”  The State Newspaper   (November 6, 1999): A1, 8.

________. “Governor offers deal to NAACP.” The State Newspaper (November 11, 1999): A1, 7.

________. “More groups considering joining boycott of S.C.”  The State Newspaper (July 27, 1999): B1, 5.

Lord, Philip. “Condon gives flag opinion.”  The Aiken Standard (July 20, 2001): 1A, 7A.

Monk, John. “Flag debate divides into 4 camps.” The State Newspaper (May 10, 2000): A1, 13.

________. “Flag plan an effort to flank McConnell.”  The State Newspaper (February 13, 2000): A1, 10.

________. “God, Barbeque, Slavery Mix at Maurice’s.”  The State Newspaper   (August 27, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “This vote won’t end flag furor.” The State Newspaper (May 11, 2000): A1, 18.

“NAACP flexing new muscle on removing Confederate flag.” The Aiken Standard  (August 30, 1999): 4A.

“NAACP relocating its convention to N.C.”  The Aiken Standard (August 15, 1999): 1A.

Pardue, Douglas, and Lisa Greene. “Angry faxes, bitter words circle flag debate.”  The State Newspaper (February 23, 1997): A1, 12.

 “Poll shows most support Senate plan to remove Confederate flag.” The Aiken Standard (May 2, 2000): 4A.

Pratt, Mark. “Half back governor’s flag plan.”  The State Newspaper (February 26, 2000): B1, 5.

Schweikert, Christine. “More voices joining chorus against flag.”  The State Newspaper (November 20, 1999): A1, 6.

Scoppe, Cindi Ross. ________. “A cautionary tale about coalitions of convenience.”  The State Newspaper (May 2, 2000): A6.

________. “GOP voters voice support for flag.”  The State Newspaper   (December 31, 1996): B1, 3.

________.  “House isn’t where it needs to be, but it’s far from where it was.”  The State Newspaper (May 18, 2000): A16.

________. “House unravels on flag.”  The State Newspaper (April 4, 1997): A1, 10.

________. “If flag falls, will GOP rise among black voters?” The State Newspaper (December 22, 1996): A1, 8.

________.  “It takes some doing to See Confederate Flag in its new location.”  The State Newspaper (July 18, 2000): A10.

________. “Let the public decide.”  The State Newspaper (January 24, 1997): A1, 8.

________. “Sparks fly as House forges flag plan.” The State Newspaper  (January 23, 1997): A1, 9

Scoppe, Cindi Ross, and Lee Bandy. “Beasley’s Lost Cause.”  The State Newspaper (July 13, 1997): D1, 5.

Scoppe, Cindi Ross, and Michael Sponhour. “As gavel falls, flags rise.”  The State Newspaper (January 15, 1997): A1, 6.

________. “Beasley losing his flag fight.”  The State Newspaper (January 19, 1997): A1, 10.

________. “Flag’s fate unfurling in House.”  The State Newspaper (January 22, 1997): A1, 10.

Smith, Bruce. “Race relations are better, but still need more work.”  The Aiken Standard (August 26, 2001): 1A, 8A.

________. “Tourism businesses of all sizes feeling pinch of NAACP boycott.” The State Newspaper (February 29, 2000): B1, 10.

Smolowitz, Peter. “NAACP aspirant wants new focus.” The State Newspaper (September 6, 2001): B1, 5.

________. “State NAACP leader re-elected.” The State Newspaper (October 16, 2001): B3.

“South Carolina must make best out of flag compromise.” The State Newspaper (May 21, 2000): D2.

State of South Carolina, Commission for Minority Affairs. Accessed December 6, 2001.

“State of the State.”  The State Newspaper (January 20, 2000): A9.

Stroud, Joseph S. “6,000 attend spirited rally for Confederate flag.” The State Newspaper (January 9, 2000): A1, 10.

________. “ ‘Avenue’ of S.C. flags proposed.”  The State Newspaper (February 5, 2000): A1, 12.

________. “Compromise at last.”  The State Newspaper (May 19, 2000): A1, 8.

_________. “Democrats back plan for marker, memorial.” The State Newspaper (May 3, 2000): A1, 7.

________. “Ex-legislators joining fight against flag.”  The State Newspaper (December 7, 1999): A1, 8.

________. “Fix ‘oversight’ by furling flag, ‘62 legislators say.” The State Newspaper (December 8, 1999): A1, 11.

________. “Flag debate starts today in House.” The State Newspaper (May 9, 2000): A1, 10.

________. “Flag plan moves to full House.” The State Newspaper (April 26, 2000): A1, 7.

________. “Group wants Confederate flag down.”  The State Newspaper (July 16, 1999): A1, 7.

________. “Hodges not budging on flag removal.”  The State Newspaper (July 27, 1999): B1, 5.

________. “House floor likely next stop for flag deal.” The State Newspaper (April 25, 2000): B3.

________. “ House votes to move flag off Capitol dome.” The State Newspaper (May 11, 2000), A1, 17.

________. “House votes to reject 2 plans to move flag.” The State Newspaper (May 10, 2000): A1, A12.

________.  “How it Happened: Timing Was Key on Flag.”  The State Newspaper (June 25, 2000): A1, 10-11.

________. “It’s not but one flag: How Senate forged deal.” The State Newspaper (April 16, 2000): A1, A6.

________. “King Day bill gets tangled in flag battle.”  The State Newspaper (March 3, 2000): A1, 14.

________. “Legislative districts’ fragmented politics help keep flag flying.”  The State Newspaper (March 5, 2000): B1, 7.

________. “Legislators lean toward flying flag” The State Newspaper (August 1, 1999): A1, 16.

________. “Modified flag bill heads to House.” The State Newspaper (May 18, 2000): A1, 6.

________. “Move flag to glass case, museum, NAACP says.”  The State Newspaper (February 3, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “NAACP Content With Sanctions.”  The State Newspaper (October 24, 1999): B1, 5.

________. “NAACP fighting Hodges’ flag plan, senator says.” The State Newspaper (February 18, 2000): B1, 3.

________. “Panel salutes Hodges’ flag plan.” The State Newspaper (March 9, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “Re-elections complicate flag debate.” The State Newspaper (April 30, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “Senate plan gaining ground in flag debate.” The State Newspaper (March 29, 2000): B1, 5.

________. “Senators may try to delay vote on Hodges’ flag plan.” The State Newspaper (February 23, 2000), B3.

________. “”Take down flag, Hodges says.”  The State Newspaper (January 20, 2000): A1, 8.

Stroud, Joseph S. and Chuck Carroll. “Black leaders haven’t given up on Hodges, yet.”  The State Newspaper (November 22, 1999): A1, 6.

Stroud, Joseph S. and Kenneth A. Harris. “Amid pomp and ceremony, a boisterous crowd argues, cheers and jeers as flag is moved.”  The State Newspaper (July 2, 2000): A1, 11.

Surratt, Clark. “Poll shows GOP voters split on flag’s removal.”  The State Newspaper (February 21, 2000): A1, 10.

 “To fly or furl.” The State Newspaper (July 16, 1999): A7.

Warthen, Brad. “These colors don’t run, but they’re made of the same stuff as pantyhose.” The State Newspaper (December 9, 2001): D2.

“What is the Sons of Confederate Veterans?”  brochure

Winiarski, Kathryn. “Hodges’ plan garners critics, supporters.” The State Newspaper (February 13, 2000), A10.

Last updated 7/01/02

Back to subject index