A Real Difference

[gottaB]

Ten years ago, on July 22nd, 1993, a remarkable event took place on the floor of the Senate. One woman stood up and through the strength of her convictions and the power of her words, the Senate was persuaded to do the right thing. As a result, the nation took an important step forward on the road to realizing its ideals of liberty and justice for all. Of equal importance, arguably, a new awareness of difference and identity arose among the Senators, bringing a much needed sophistication and maturity to our national political debate, signs of which are in evidence to this day.

The vote in the 103rd Senate concerned an amendment to the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, specifically, the Helms Amendment (610) to Grant an Extension of Patent to the Daughters of the Confederacy. The legislation had already been trashed in the Judiciart Committee. However, when it was introduced on the floor of the Senate, apparently some Senators hadn't been made aware of the real issues involved. A motion to table the amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 48.

That vote could not stand. Carol Moseley Braun rose and spoke of the symbolism of the Confederate Flag, the racism that it embodied, and the meaning it had for the United States of America. Over boisterous objection from the Helms gang, she said "I have to tell you this vote is about race. It is about racial symbolism. It is about racial symbols, the racial past, and the single most painful episode in American history."

She continued:

This flag is the real flag of the Confederacy . If there is anybody in this Chamber anybody, indeed anybody in this world, that has a doubt that the Confederate effort was around preserving the institution of slavery, I am prepared and I believe history is prepared to dispute them to the nth. There is no question but that battle was fought to try to preserve our Nation, to keep the States from separating themselves over the issue of whether or not my ancestors could be held as property, as chattel, as objects of commerce and trade in this country.

And people died. More Americans died in the Civil War than any war they have ever gone through since. People died over the proposition that indeed these United States stood for the proposition that every person was created equal without regard to race, that we are all American citizens.

I am sorry, Madam President. I will lower my voice. I am getting excited, because, quite frankly, that is the very issue. The issue is whether or not Americans, such as myself, who believe in the promise of this country, who feel strongly and who are patriots in this country, will have to suffer the indignity of being reminded time and time again, that at one point in this country's history we were human chattel. We were property. We could be traded, bought, and sold.

Now, to suggest as a matter of revisionist history that this flag is not about slavery flies in the face of history, Madam President.

I was not going to get inflammatory. In fact, my staff brought me this little thing earlier, and it has been sitting here. I do not know if you noticed it sitting here during the earlier debate in which I was dispassionate and tried my level best not to be emotional and lawyering about and not get into calling names and talking about race and racism. I did not use it to begin with. I do want to share it now. It is a speech by the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, March 21, 1861, in Savannah, GA., "Slavery, the Cornerstone of the Confederacy," and this man goes on to say:

The new Confederate constitution has put to rest forever all agitating questions relating to our peculiar `institution,' which is what they called it, African slavery as it exists among us, the proper status of a Negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature, that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

And then he goes on to say:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race is his natural and moral condition.

This was a statement by the Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Madam President, across the room on the other side is the flag . I say to you it is outrageous. It is an absolute outrage that this body would adopt as an amendment to this legislation a symbol of this point of view and, Madam President, I say to you that it is an important issue. It is a symbolic issue up there. There is no way you can get around it.

The reason for my emotion--I have been here almost 7 months now, and my colleagues will tell you there is not a more congenial, laid back, even person in this entire body who makes it a point to try to get along with everybody. I make it a point to try to talk to my colleagues and get beyond controversy and conflict, to try to find consensus on issues.

But I say to you, Madam President, on this issue there can be no consensus. It is an outrage. It is an insult. It is absolutely unacceptable to me and to me and to millions of Americans, black or white, that we would put the imprimatur of the United States Senate on a symbol of this kind of idea. And that is what is at stake with this amendment, Madam President.

I am going to continue--I am going to continue because I am going to call it like I see it, as I always do. I was appalled, appalled at a segment of my own Democratic Party that would go take a walk and vote for something like this.

I am going to talk for a minute first about my brethren, my close-in brethren and then talk about the other side of the aisle and the responsibility of the Republican Party.

The reason the Republican Party got run out on a rail the last time is the American people sensed intolerance in that party. The American people, African-Americans sensed there was not room for them in that party. Folks look a look at the convention and said, my God, what are these people standing for? This is not America. And they turned around and voted for change. They elected Bill Clinton President and the rest of us to this Chamber. The changes they were speaking out for was a change that said we have to get past racism, we have to get past sexism, the many issues that divide us as Americans, and come together as Americans so we can make this country be what is can be in the 21st century.

That is the real reason, Madam President, that I am here today. My State has less than 12 percent African-Americans in it, but the people of Illinois had no problem voting for a candidate that was African-American because they thought they were doing the same thing.

Similarly, the State of California sent two women, two women to the U.S. Senate, breaking a gender barrier, as did the State of Washington. Why? Because they felt that it was time to get past the barriers that said that women had no place in the conduct of our business.

And so, just as our country is moving forward, Madam President, to have this kind of symbol shoved in your face, shoved in my face, shoved in the faces of all the Americans who want to see a change for us to get beyond racism, is singularly inappropriate.

I say to you, Madam President, that this is no small matter. This is not a matter of little old ladies walking around doing good deeds. There is no reason why these little old ladies cannot do good deeds anyway. If they choose to wave the Confederate flag , that certainly is their right. Because I care about the fact that this is a free country. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. People are supposed to be able to say what they want to say. They are supposed to be able to join associations and organizations that express their views.

But I daresay, Madam President, that following the Civil War, and following the victory of the United States and the coming together of our country, that that peculiar institution was put to rest for once and for all; that the division in our Nation, the North versus the South, was put to rest once and for all. And the people of this country do not want to see a day in which flags like that are underwritten, underscored, adopted, approved by this U.S. Senate.

That is what this vote is about. That is what this vote is about.

I say to you, Madam President, I do not know--I do not want to yield the floor right now because I do not know what will happen next.

I will yield momentarily to my colleague from California, Madam President, because I think that this is an issue that I am not going--if I have to stand here until this room freezes over, I am not going to see this amendment put on this legislation which has to do with national service.

Well, as you know, the room did not freeze over. Moseley Braun's colleagues rushed to her side, making many impassioned speeches and vows of support. A second vote was held, and the motion to table was carried 74-26.

26 Senators had been persuaded to change their votes, a real political achievement. More importantly, the Senate heeded the call to think about symbols of identity, to understand the power of symbols in the lives of real, flesh and blood Americans.

Today, July 22nd (23rd already, my how time flies), 2003, Carol Moseley Braun is campaigning to be our next president. Many voices in the press, Beltway experts, and other political junkies have dismissed her candidacy as "symbolic." That's the word that is used. Symbolic. As if that's a bad thing, a thing without power, or real political value.

I sat to you, fellow DUers, that symbols do matter, and that by taking seriously the symbolism of Moseley Braun's campaign, the Democrats will grow and secure their place as the most authentic voice of the American people.

[blm]

1. I remember that moment...

She was a wonderful sight to behold. Her voice was a symphony.

I live in SC, now, after spending most of my adult life in NY and LA. The whole"state's rights" gang on the Confederate flag issue can go eff themselves. What's worse than a racist carrying that flag is the politician who hides behind state's rights to avoid the controversy.

[dsc]

2. so what pray tell

should the feds do if a state wishes to fly that flag with its own money? Should we make it succeed? Should we refuse to fund its roads and schools? Should we attack it with our army and forcibly take down that flag? Dean was clear in his opposition to that flag as you well know. But as you also well know there is absolutely nothing any President can do with regards to the flags flying in the states. It should be noted that this vote was about giving a Senate seal of approval to flying that flag.

[gottaB]

3. up to speed

The debate has evolved considerably. Let's keep up.

First off, forget about a military solution. No Southern State would be willing to fight a war over this. They already tried that route, and the results were disasterous. So let's take that off the table.

IIRC Dean's initial comments on the issue were in response to a question about South Carolina. As you may know, the debate today in the South has focused on the flying of the Confederate flag over the Statehouse, over offices of state government and over it's inclusion in official state insignia. That makes it a constitutional issue, as the US Constitution provides for equal protection of the laws for all citizens, and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The question, you see, is whether a state can be said to providing equal protection of the laws while its official insignia, while the flag that flies over halls of justice or legislature symbolizes the unequal treatment of US citizens. This is a point Howard Dean may have come around to. I'm not sure, but here is one quote:

I understand the Confederate flag is a symbol of heritage for some folks ... But there are also a very significant number of folks in this state to whom it is a symbol of oppression and slavery. I don't think you can have symbols like that be flown on the Statehouse ... If someone wants to fly that from their house, that's their private business. But I just don't see how that fits into state government. source

That statment was made in January, but then in an March, during an interview with Joe Klein, Dean was asked about statements he had made against the Confederate flag on Meet the Press. Dean replied:

That's a little out of context. What I said was, I don't like the Confederate flag flying there, but there's not much the president can do about it, so it's a matter of local choice. But that doesn't mean I support it, and I don't. source

Well, I don't really know where Dean stands on this issue. The first statement is in line with what a lot of the other candidates are saying, for example, Dick Gephardt. The second statement, which you are echoing, is really not an adequate response, particularily in light of where the understanding of the issue is at today among the other candidates.

As you will recall, the NAACP has been maintaining a boycott against the State of South Carolina because of its flying of the Confederate flag. South Carolina, due to its early primary, is a prime target for the Democratic presidential hopefuls. The first test, therefore, of where they stand, of how far they will go to do the right thing in this regard, is whether they will spend any money in South Carolina. John Edwards, for example, has decided to honor the boycott, at considerable disadvantage to his campaign. John Kerry, on the other hand, has decided to violate the boycott. To his credit, Kerry has issued an apology to the NAACP, clearly showing that he understands the issue, that he cares about it. He begs forgiveness in light of the overall goal of electing a Democrat.

What can a President do, short of calling out the national guard? There are many things a President can do, beginning with simply speaking out about the issue. They might also choose not to visit states that fly the Confederate flag, or make other gestures in order to show the national condemnation of state-sponsored racism. Finally, there's the option of punitive economic sanctions, which could be exercised through the power of the veto. Thus how a candidate responds to the NAACP boycott of South Carolina is an indication of the kinds of things they might do as President of the United States.

And just to clarify, this is not a losing issue for Democrats in the South--although to some extent it depends on how it is phrased. There is generally support among Democratic and Democratic-leaning Independent whites for removing the Confederate flag from statehouses, but not from historical monuments or other state government memorial sites.

On edit: Typos

[Egnever]

4. Yay Carol!

I love her!

I like Dean more but love her.

If she doesnt get the nod I hope whoever does puts her in his cabinet somewhere. After watching her speak in several of the debates I am convinced she is a true treasure and it would be a shame to not put her considerable tallents to some use in the white house if in fact she doesnt make it there under her own steam.