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.
References
“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): <http://www.thestate.com> 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. http://www.state.sc.us/cma/start.html 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