The California state assembly has passed a new law that will be prohibit the selling or displaying items with an image of the Confederate flag. We have previously discussed the disciplining of students and others over the display of this flag as protected speech. In the same way, this bill raises serious constitutional questions and could trigger a court fight.
Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton secured a 72-1 vote in favor of the new law. It would not prohibit the display in educational or museum settings. However, it would prevent people from displaying the flag on state property which would presumably include parks. Hall said that he took the action after his mother saw replica Confederate money being sold at the state Capitol gift shop.
The amended bill is quite vague on key terms. It states:
SECTION 1. Section 53.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
53.5. (a) The State of California may not sell or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property inscribed with such an image unless the image appears in a book that serves an educational or historical purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, “sell” means to transfer title or possession, exchange, or barter, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. “Transfer possession” includes only transactions that would be found by the State Board of Equalization, for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law, to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange, or barter.
This removes problematic language in the original version but leaves a lot of questions. Here is the original language:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 53.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
53.5. (a) A person The State of California may not sell a Confederate flag or display the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, also referred to as the Stars and Bars, or any similar image, or tangible personal property inscribed with the such an image of a Confederate flag on property owned or operated by the state unless the image appears in a book that serves an educational or historical purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1)“Person” means any individual, partnership, firm, joint stock company, corporation, limited liability company, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.
(2)“Sell” section, “sell” means to transfer title or possession, exchange, or barter, conditional or otherwise, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, for consideration. “Transfer possession” includes only transactions that would be found by the State Board of Equalization, for purposes of the Sales and Use Tax Law, to be in lieu of a transfer of title, exchange, or barter.
Hall insisted that the flag is a symbol of racism that should not be allowed to be displayed. The Southern flag is clearly insulting to many people due to its historical associations. However, it is also a simple of Southern heritage and sacrifice. Robert E. Lee himself identified with the flag while rejoicing in the end of slavery. He stated:
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.
So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.
Respected scholars like Civil War historian Shelby Foote have noted that the flag traditionally represented the South’s resistance to Northern political dominance. As discussing in PBS interview, he was sensitive to how many of his friends viewed it as a symbol of racism but he did not share that view. Others view it as a symbol of state’s rights or Southern culture or opposition to speech codes or politically correct sentiments. The point is that, if some flags are allowed, there are a variety of symbols that are viewed as offensive by different groups.
So the question is what happens when people want to display this symbol while others are displaying other flags viewed negatively by other groups from Free Tibet to the PLO to Israel to China. It sounds a lot like content-based censorship.
The bill was amended to exclude non-government employees and businesses from the ban to address some of these concerns. It would also not ban the display for educational or historical reasons in textbooks. To the extent that it only affects government speech, the state is on stronger ground to be sure, but I am still unclear on the wide array of displays organized by the government with citizens or groups. Even with the wise exclusions, there would appear a myriad of circumstances where state employees would be presented with a conflict in barring the display not just on a flag but in other forms containing this symbol. Those specific conflicts could present an interesting challenge to the new law.
Source: CBS
Word Press apparently took out all of the quotes to which I responded directly to, so I apologize if the above appears difficult to follow.
Supac
“To suggest that Lincoln and his racist rich guy clients in the North had some benevolent purpose in mind to “free the slaves” when they invaded the Southern States instilling a policy of genocide against the Southern civilian population is intellectually dishonest. ”
“Who did that?”
>>>Hmm, so you admit that Lincoln’s purpose for invading the Southern States was not to “end slavery”? Only children believe the altruistic propaganda for why wars are fought (e.g. to end slavery, save the union); all wars are for economic purposes (e.g. plunder, exploitation, land, taxes). You’re posts had me confused on your position there, I suppose.<<>> In Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address he plainly said that he would invade if the the citizens of Southern States did not pay the 40% tax on all goods just passed by the Morrill Act and also that he was fine with allowing slavery to continue. His own words:
“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government (four Federal forts), and to collect the duties and imposts (import tax); but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” (Paragraph 21)
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (Paragraph 4)
“I understand a proposed (Corwin) Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
A blockade is an act of war and the U.S. Imperial Government was trying to blockade Charleston Harbor and three other harbors. Fort Sumter was effectively a tax collection post that had reinforcements and provisions on the way to support it; they were only delayed due to storms. Lincoln thus started the war by trying a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to permanently occupy Fort Sumter, for the purpose of collecting Federal taxes in the territorial waters of South Carolina (all while refusing to negotiate the purchase of the Fort by Confederate representatives). Lincoln had already demanded the States send him troops to invade. Lincoln wanted a war and he got it. Nobody was killed at Ft. Sumter as they surrendered and were released, it was just an excuse to tell children about in government approved history books.<<>>Southern whites (also blacks) were looked at as a lower class of “trash” to self-righteous Northerners (this continues today). This attitude is best proclaimed by the man (with Sheridan) who also carried out the genocide of Native-Americans when he stated while stationed in South Carolina before the war:
“This state, their aristocracy, their patriarchal chivalry and glory-all trash. The young bloods are brave, fine riders, bold to rashness and dangerous in every sense. The present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright.”
Sherman’s March to the Sea, burning Atlanta, Columbia and many smaller cities and towns, the raping, pillaging and murder of civilians is all well documented.<<<>>Interesting that you find such acts funny. See above.<<>>You haven’t pointed out one lie; you just keep regurgitating the propaganda you were taught in middle school as if it were “basic fact”..<<>>”I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Were these words spoken by a Southern politician? No, it was Lincoln in the debate with Douglas. As a member of the Illinois legislature Lincoln urged the legislature to appropriate money for colonization in order to remove blacks from the state and prevent miscegenation. As president, Lincoln toiled endlessly with plans to “colonize” (i.e., deport) all of the black people out of America. In Illinois, the state constitution was amended in 1848 to prohibit free black people from residing in the state. Lincoln supported it. He also supported the Illinois Black Codes.
Accusing Southern politicians of being racists (they were) while promoting the idea that Northern politicians were involved in some righteous calling is pure hypocrisy. Who is the apologist for racism? <<<
SS,
Religious zealot, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln killed a million Americans in the name of God to stop secession. Ronald Reagan supported, nay, induced secession of states from the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Rootin’ Tootin’ Putin is looking for a second serving of secession in the Ukraine after the tasty morsel of Crimea. In the legal realm, many practitioners obtain very comfortable existences in divorce courts – divorce is eminently lucrative. “Cross us out of your Union” is a demand heard around the world. Secession good, secession bad; it’s so hard to tell.
Wasn’t Me
“Just seems like the douche bag morons out on the left coast might want to pick up a history book on occasion.”
Wow. I get hammered for civility while I’m being called a Shiite Liberal, but this gets to float in here?
The presumption that people who don’t care for this flag haven’t read history is so funny coming from people who wouldn’t know the Cornerstone Speech if it tied them to a post and whipped them.
“It is the “Battle Flag of Northern Virginia.” It has absolutely nothing suggestive of racism, slavery, hatred or white supremacy. ”
And what, Pray Tell, were the folks of Northern Virginia fighting for?
“representing the southern states no longer wanted to be a part of the union with the northern states.”
And why was that?
“the message of flag’s design is CROSS US OUT of your Union!”
And why was that?
“The southern states withdrew from the union in a movement called “secession,” which is what led to the Civil War. Anyone with a basic understanding of elementary history knows this.”
My school in Arkansas was apparently like your school, since neither of them apparently taught the truth about why the south seceded (see, again, the Cornerstone Speech).
The Civil War was about slavery. Anyone who doesn’t know that is a douche bag moron.
Now, I have a little Confederate Battle Flag around here somewhere. I think I’ll burn it early this year.
Elaine, you can see that those two are copies of the third. Feel free to delete the duplicates.
Thanks.
Darren Smith
“If any flag is totally banned, those who formerly used it will just make another one to symbolize their cause.”
Good thing we’re not banning this flag. Just the state of CA banning it from state shops, right? Private parties are still free to sell the flag in CA, right?
But I’m glad they’ll keep making them, or make new ones. I’ll just burn the new one, too.
Scott,
I retrieved two of your comments. It looks like WordPress is being temperamental today.
Sorry for the triple post.
Upstream someone said you cannot ‘speak ill” of the royal family in the UK.
Sorry. That is quite untrue.
Accurate information is prized. Inaccurate information, not so much.
My reference was that British newspapers cannot speak ill of the royal family. You have proof they can?
doug ferguson
“its sad im flying mine indefinately heritage not hate . if that flag offends you go back and read your history .”
The flag offends me BECAUSE I’ve read history. Your heritage IS hate.
“Other terms often reflect a more partisan view of events, such as “War of Northern Aggression”, used by some Southerners, or the “Freedom War”, used by their black counterparts to celebrate the effect the war had on ending slavery. In most foreign languages, the war is called “War of Secession”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_the_American_Civil_War
“The American Civil War has been known by a number of names since it began in 1861. These names reflect the historical, political, and cultural sensitivities of different groups and regions.
The most common name in modern American usage is simply “the Civil War”. Although used rarely during the war, the term “War Between the States” became widespread afterward in the Southern United States. During and immediately after the war, Northern forces often used the term “War of the Rebellion”, while the Southern equivalent was “War for Southern Independence”. The latter regained some currency in the late 20th century, but has again fallen out of use. Other terms often reflect a more partisan view of events, such as “War of Northern Aggression”, used by some Southerners, or the “Freedom War”, used by their black counterparts to celebrate the effect the war had on ending slavery. In most foreign languages, the war is called “War of Secession”.
A variety of names also exist for the forces on each side; the opposing forces named battles differently as well. The Union forces frequently named battles for bodies of water that were prominent on or near the battlefield; Confederates most often used the name of the nearest town. As a result, many battles have two or more names that have had varying use, although with some notable exceptions, one has tended to take precedence over time.
War of Northern/Southern Aggression
The “War of Northern Aggression” has been used to indicate the Union side as the belligerent party in the war. The “War of Southern Aggression”, conversely, has been used by those who maintain that the South was the belligerent party.”
“It is not known as the War of Northern Aggression for nothing”
You know, Paul, when you’re not sure about something, you really shouldn’t act like you are.
It’s known as the war of northern aggression because the south wanted to lie about it to make themselves look better.
They still do.
We did have this conversation about US bases being on US land. It led to Guantanamo. You argued that if the Cubans cut off our lease, and we ignored it, then the Cubans would be in the right for attacking us.
And then you promptly dropped the subject, of course.
As for Sumter, you’re just plain wrong.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-sumter-construction-and-ownership.7395/
“On November 22, 1841, all issues regarding ownership of the fort were cleared up as the Federal Government was granted title to 125 acres of harbor “land” recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.”
“You call Shelby Foote a confederate apologist, but you are a northern apologist. ”
AGAIN: One side got it wrong, the other got it right. Did the south pass a version of the 13th amendment? NO. The north did. So, the north eventually got the answer to slavery right, the south never did, and started a bloody war to defend it.
Now, which one of those has something to apologize for?
“the cornerstone speech is based on the same reasoning used in the US Constitution. That did not change until the 13th Amendment.”
Exactly. It changed with the 13th amendment. One could say that it started to change with the Emancipation Proclamation, since the south didn’t do anything like that, either.
But I don’t remember seeing anything about white supremacy in the constitution. Allowing slavery was not popular with some founders, like John Jay.
Supak – it is clear that if we later “get it right” all is good with you. The framers of the Constitution kicked the slavery can down the road and we really could blame them for the War of Northern/Southern Aggression.
Now I know you are fond of the Cornerstone Speech, but that was one state, not all of them. When the North decided it was going to invade the South, they were going to have to move troops through states that had not seceded. They did not take kindly to this and so they seceded. In those days STATES came before United. That includes Virginia.
If the North was all squeaky clean in this war, then why did they contain slave-holding states while they were invading the South? Why did Northern commander initially hand back captured slaves? Why did the stop doing that when the declared the captured slaves ‘war contraband’?
OK, I’ll try again…
“It is not known as the War of Northern Aggression for nothing”
You know, Paul, when you’re not sure about something, you really shouldn’t act like you are.
We did have this conversation. It led to Guantanamo. You argued that if the Cubans cut off our lease, and we ignored it, then the Cubans would be in the right for attacking us.
And then you promptly dropped the subject, of course.
As for Sumter, you’re just plain wrong.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-sumter-construction-and-ownership.7395/
“On November 22, 1841, all issues regarding ownership of the fort were cleared up as the Federal Government was granted title to 125 acres of harbor “land” recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.”
—-
“You call Shelby Foote a confederate apologist, but you are a northern apologist. ”
AGAIN: One side got it wrong, the other got it right. Did the south pass a version of the 13th amendment? NO. The north did. So, the north eventually got the answer to slavery right, the south never did, and started a bloody war to defend it.
Now, which one of those has something to apologize for?
—
“the cornerstone speech is based on the same reasoning used in the US Constitution. That did not change until the 13th Amendment.”
Exactly. It changed with the 13th amendment. One could say that it started to change with the Emancipation Proclamation, since the south didn’t do anything like that, either.
But I don’t remember seeing anything about white supremacy in the constitution. Allowing slavery was not popular with some founders, like John Jay.
“It is not known as the War of Northern Aggression for nothing”
You know, Paul, when you’re not sure about something, you really shouldn’t act like you are.
We did have this conversation. It led to Guantanamo. You argued that if the Cubans cut off our lease, and we ignored it, then the Cubans would be in the right for attacking us.
And then you promptly dropped the subject, of course.
As for Sumter, you’re just plain wrong.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/fort-sumter-construction-and-ownership.7395/
“On November 22, 1841, all issues regarding ownership of the fort were cleared up as the Federal Government was granted title to 125 acres of harbor “land” recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.”
“You call Shelby Foote a confederate apologist, but you are a northern apologist. ”
AGAIN: One side got it wrong, the other got it right. Did the south pass a version of the 13th amendment? NO. The north did. So, the north eventually got the answer to slavery right, the south never did, and started a bloody war to defend it.
Now, which one of those has something to apologize for?
“the cornerstone speech is based on the same reasoning used in the US Constitution. That did not change until the 13th Amendment.”
Exactly. It changed with the 13th amendment. One could say that it started to change with the Emancipation Proclamation, since the south didn’t do anything like that, either.
But I don’t remember seeing anything about white supremacy in the constitution. Allowing slavery was not popular with some founders, like John Jay.
Trouble posting here…
freetruthnow
“To suggest that Lincoln and his racist rich guy clients in the North had some benevolent purpose in mind to “free the slaves” when they invaded the Southern States instilling a policy of genocide against the Southern civilian population is intellectually dishonest. ”
Who did that?
And the north didn’t start the war.
“policy of genocide against the Southern civilian population”
What race of people were Union troops trying to eliminate?
“The naïveté inherent in believing politicians and their sycophant intellectuals who come up with crusading propaganda long after they have made a decision to murder for money like common thugs”
HILARIOUS! Do you know what slavery was? It was murder, torture, rape, kidnapping, and terror for money.
“especially in order to soothe one’s ego”
You mean like you’re doing by lying about basic facts of history?
“Just because the propaganda has been around for a very long period of time is no excuse for ignoring the truth.”
Words for confederate apologists to live by.
It is not known as the War of Northern Aggression for nothing
Supak – the cornerstone speech is based on the same reasoning used in the US Constitution. That did not change until the 13th Amendment.
sewer urchin
Nice name.
” It frustrates me whenever I hear a sanctimonious Yankee proclaim”
Again… This is civil? I’ve been called a Shiite liberal by Nick, and now a sanctimounious [sic] Yankee.
“simultaneously displaying their complete lack of historical reference.”
Who did that? I’m aware of the history here. You confederate apologists are the ones who seem confused.
Let me help.
“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; 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 normal condition”–Alexander Stepehens
How’s that for historical reference?
“The original context of the flag has been all but lost in these discussions courtesy of the guilt ridden, grievance mongers”
And this passes the civility test.. Wow.
The original context of the southern states that fought to continue the terroristic war against black people has not been lost by anyone except you confederate apologists.
” quick to define its significance to suit their purpose”
I didn’t write the cornerstone speech.
“It is a far more complex issue than flag=slavery=bad”
I agree! It is more like flag=white supremacy=slavery=torture=rape=kidnapping=murder=horrific=war=reconstruction=Jim Crow=CRA=Southern Strategy=You in here apologizing for horrible people.
Paul Shulte…
My statement about saving your breath was rhetorical.
I guess the professor doesn’t read his comment sections.
“so the rest of can chime in as we want”
Of course you can.
“That is how this blog works.”
Duh. Also, people get proven wrong about things and then drop the subjects.
“Historically, you are dead wrong”
Says you.
“Emotionally, you are waving the bloody flag of slavery, which we should all bow to, but you have yet to deal with the US flag that supported slavery in the North until the 13th Amendment.”
Wait, what? We should all bow to the flag of slavery? Speak for yourself.
“but you have yet to deal with the US flag that supported slavery in the North until the 13th Amendment”
Have you read everything I’ve ever written? Have you read every comment I have made here?
The US dealt with slavery. We got rid of it. Our flag represents a country that realized, after much turmoil, that slavery was an evil. We were getting rid of it fast enough to piss of the southern states, who then not only left the union and started a new one whose “foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man” (The Cornerstone Speech), but they also started a war to defend slavery.
If you can’t see the difference between a country that ended slavery and a country whose foundation rested on white supremacy, then you are willfully blind as well as obfuscating the real point here.
“You get rid of one, you should get rid of the other.”
What does that even mean? We got rid of the country that supported terrorism against black people, and we kept the one that realized it was wrong.
” I really do not want to hurt your feelings”
And this is considered civil?
Trust me, you can’t hurt my feelings.
” I would take the word of Shelby Foote over yours on this subject any day”
Of course you would. You, like Mr Foote, are a confederate apologist.
“And the war started with South Carolina, acting as an independent nation, firing on Fort Sumter, where US troops were lodged on its nation’s land.”
The condescension is thicker than molasses in here. You think I’m not aware of the facts pertaining to the Civil War?
“US troops were lodged on its nation’s land”
Um, nope. US bases, anywhere in the world, are considered US land.
Supak – I think we have had this conversation before, but if not you, then someone else. US bases are not US land. They may have a lease agreement that allows them to deal with the land like it was US land, but it is not US land. If it was US, they would not have to continually renew the leases.
You call Shelby Foote a confederate apologist, but you are a northern apologist. Which is worse or are both equal?
st andrews cross is the scottish flag