Other SC Issues

[alexsaitta]

My grandparents came to Ellis Island in 1923. My parents spent their entire lives up north. I spent 40 years of my life in New York and about 10 years in South Carolina. I’m a northerner. I don’t have a southern heritage. Slavery is not in my family history or even part of the area I grew up in. Actually, none of this is my history. I can’t relate to most of it.

What I do know is I've met a ton of white southerners who over the years have expressed strong feelings about the Civil War, southern history, states’ rights, the Battle Flag, slavery, the whole gamut. As a researcher by nature, I took it all in.

Depending on who you talk to, they see the flag as representing one of three things: One is their southern heritage. What the south had, and what it lost. Second, and most relevant to today, they see the flag as representing states’ rights. Without a southern heritage or a history tied to slavery, to me the flag represents states’ rights. Particularly that South Carolina had the guts to say, we are tired of being pushed around by the federal government, federal courts and federal politicians, and we are out of here. After last week’s federal court rulings that stomped on the states, the issue of states’ rights is more relevant now than ever. Finally, many southerners look at the flag as honoring their relatives who fought in the war, gave it their all, and lost everything. When I look at some of them today, I can see a bit of their ancestors that fought in the war. The lineage is surreal to an outsider like myself.

I can’t think of one white southerner I’ve met and have come to know that sees the flag as a sign of slavery or racism or white supremacy. Obviously they are out there, but I would say they are few and far in-between. By and large I think most have forgotten the slavery angle of the Civil War and they’ve long accepted integration. Like I’ve said, I’ve had scores of conversations about the Civil War, the 10th amendment circa 1860, slavery, battles of the war, etc.

Continued below.

[alexsaitta]

Continued from above.

I’m from New York. The racial tensions are so high there, you can count on the following chain of events whenever something occurs: An incident occurs, the political leaders and community activists jump in and play the race card throwing gasoline on everything and everyone, the media jumps in and throws a match on it all, profiting from a spike in viewer/ readers that follows. Protests start, and it culminates in street violence, clashes with the NYPD and then maybe a small scale riot. Just off the top of my head: Freddy’s Fashion Mart protest and fire, Gavin Cato’s death on a bicycle, Bernhard Goetz’s subway shooting, Howard Beach, Amadou Diallo sodomized by the NYPD, the list goes on and on. Entire political and community activists’ careers and organizations were built upon racial divisions and exploitation.

You can see in Charleston there were some attempts to escalate these murders to protests to violence down on the ground, but it didn’t happen because the people of this state don’t see the state as strongly divided on racial grounds. As a result, racial division and unrest has not become an industry here like it is in New York City. If racism on both sides in New York City is a 10. Here I gauge it at a 4.

So it is quite unfortunate, the national media has taken this flag controversy and used it to paint flag supporters and too often all South Carolinians as racists or white supremacists. That is an unfair characterization and simply untrue. If someone from NBC news asked me what I thought, I’d say, and how long have you lived in South Carolina? How many South Carolinians are you friends with? Once I got the deer in the head lights look, I’d tell them what I wrote above and say you are operating in a 1960’s time wrap and are clueless to sentiments today. Take your camera (lighter fluid and matches) back to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or where ever you came from and go fix the problems up there. These people can handle this themselves.

Here is a story that makes my point -- using 1960's photos, written by someone who works at the University of Illinois. Distort and amplify. www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/confederate-flag-always-racist-119481.html#.VZAmJvYw-M8

[conservative]

Alex, you've nailed a good point left out of the MSM's reporting and commentary; States Rights. The Constitution was built upon them but the Left continues to equate them with only slavery. Their precept enables the Federal Government to continue to grow beyond the constraint of enumerated powers. The Political Left's attempt to create their version of a more perfect union is going to ruin everything long before Global warming.

[alexsaitta]

After the racial murders of nine innocent people, everyone felt sympathy not only in Charleston, but in South Carolina and the nation as a whole. There was an outpouring of admiration for the families and the leaders of Charleston in how they handled the tragic event. The killer and what he stood for was universally condemned. I believe if the event started and ended here, this would have been a unifying event for the state and the nation.

I don’t know who or what group did this, but the issue of the tragic murders should have never been politicized, pulling in the battle flag (and ultimately all monuments of the south) into the mix like it was. People were naturally coming together over the shootings, under the leadership of those in Charleston and universal sympathy for the shooting victims and their families.

Pulling in this wedge issue (the flag) drown-out the positive response that budded and starting to grow, and stamped out the opportunity to turn this into a unifying event. My issue is with the politicization of the murders by politicians, and how the national media and operatives around the country then smeared South Carolinians as racists and are doing their best to wipe out their heritage, by vandalizing monuments all over the South.

My hearts go out to the victims, their families and the community in Charleston. However, the national media and operatives around the country need to turn their attention elsewhere. They've done nothing positive.

[goforit]

Very well written letter by this Easley man. theeasleyprogress.com/opinion/letters/742/dont-surrender-heritage

[conservative]

I second your opinion and his.

[alexsaitta]

When I read the stories about the battle flag and Facebook conversations, often the discussion went back to the civil war and its root causes. My advice is to watch these two videos that cover the Alien & Sedition Act, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Tariff of 1828 and Nullification Crisis of 1832. I think the primary roots of the Civil War go back as far as 1795. What is the solution when the federal government passes something the states do not agree with? This idea of nullification came up in the 1790's and then succession in the 1830's. Both seemed to be considered viable options.

Two good videos on this.

[diamonddave]

May 8, 2013 9:26:22 GMT -5 alexsaitta said:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/07/mark-sanford-wins-south-carolina-special-election/]Click Here For The Story

[/url]

No surprise Sanford won. He out muscled her on knowledge of the issues
Actually, the reason it's no surprise that he won is this is Post-Carroll Campbell South Carolina, he's a "Republican", and in SC, RINOs beat DINOs in elections, simple as that..

[/quote]

[alexsaitta]

My family went to the pro-Family Rally in Columbia on Saturday. Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and others spoke. My favorite three candidates are Cruz, Perry and Bobby Jindal. We took Walter our dog. He doesn't photograph well.

Powers not delegated to the federal government in the US Constitution are reserved to the states – states’ rights. No where in the Constitution does it state the federal government tells states whom to issue state marriage licenses to. It is up to the states, and in those states the majority rules. The elasticity and supremacy clauses have been taken too far.


If it is a rights issue, do you think the right suddenly turns on for two women, but then turns off for three women? Rights are either there or not. Rights don’t arbitrarily turn on and off, and the Supreme Court will figure this out when the polygamy cases come before the Court. Marriage is an arbitrary definition and because of that whom is married and is not married should be left to the democratic process, the states and the people of that state.