Posted on 07/25/2006 10:19:23 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Unless lawmakers remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds, the road to the College World Series could become longer for Clemson, South Carolina and the state’s other schools.
An NCAA subcommittee is re-examining the flag issue after the head of the Black Coaches Association questioned why Clemson hosted regional and super regional games before advancing to Omaha this past season.
In 2002 the NCAA implemented a two-year moratorium prohibiting schools in South Carolina from hosting any pre-assigned championships. A year later the NCAA extended the ban indefinitely.
Now BCA executive director Floyd Keith wants college athletics’ chief governing body to consider broadening the ban to keep all postseason contests out of the state.
“At least from our viewpoint, there should not be any postseason events awarded,” Keith said Friday during a telephone interview.
Robert Vowels, commissioner of the Southwestern Athletic Conference and chair of the NCAA’s Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, said an eight-person subcommittee plans a teleconference in the coming months to discuss the issue. The group wants to review the original moratorium and the selection process for championship sites in sports such as baseball and tennis, in which the highest-seeded schools often are chosen as hosts.
“The main thing is understanding the selection process and just seeing what’s what,” Vowels said. “Once we can understand processes, then we can go from there.”
The NCAA maintains the same postseason ban in Mississippi, which incorporates the Confederate flag into its state flag.
Greenville’s Bi-Lo Center hosted first- and second-round games of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament in 2002 because the bid had been awarded before the ban took effect.
Since then, however, South Carolina has lost out on several NCAA-sanctioned events.
• A cross-country regional that Furman had hosted for 21 years was moved.
• The ACC pulled its baseball tournament out of Fort Mill in 2003.
• Officials with USC and the Bi-Lo Center were turned down after submitting bids to serve as first- and second-round sites for the NCAA men’s basketball tourney.
“March Madness is March Sadness in South Carolina because there will be no March Madness here. And the NAACP is in lockstep with it,” said Lonnie Randolph, the NAACP state president.
Lawmakers have not addressed the flag issue since 2000, when a legislative compromise moved the flag from atop the Capitol dome to a Confederate monument on the north side of the State House grounds. Beginning in 1999, the NAACP asked African-Americans to boycott South Carolina’s tourism industry, an effort Randolph said would continue until the flag comes down.
In the meantime, the only postseason games that have been staged in the state have been at the conference level. While aware of the NCAA’s moratorium, the SEC allows its schools from South Carolina and Mississippi to submit proposals to host the conference’s neutral-site championships.
The SEC held its 2005 women’s basketball tournament in Greenville after a scheduling conflict at Atlanta’s Philips Arena forced organizers to look for an alternative site. This past fall the SEC cross country championships were run at Fort Jackson.
However, despite attractive arenas in Greenville and Columbia, event organizers across the state have had their hands tied when it comes to trying to host games in the lucrative NCAA men’s basketball tournament.
Said Randolph: “(Basketball fans) don’t drop pennies in your community. They drop millions of dollars in your community.”
Vowels said his subcommittee would study the issue of extending the NCAA’s ban to include all postseason events and would make a recommendation to the NCAA’s executive committee by the end of the year.
Even if no changes are made, Keith, the BCA director, believes the ban has been effective in drawing attention to the flag.
“It’s certainly an issue of awareness that has been supported and embraced by the NCAA. That in itself is a positive step from our platform,” Keith said. “Is it completely eradicated or something we can say it’s done? No. The issue is still there.”
>>>In that case those Clemson boys can just stay home and play with themselves.<<<
I'm certain they would gladly stay home if all the Damn Yankees would leave the South (and take their attitudes with them). You do know the difference between a Yankee and a Damn Yankee, don't you?
>>>Apparently there were more southerners, black and white, in the Union army than there were in the confederate army.<<<
I never heard that one before. Do you have a reliable source?
>>>Where is the White Coaches Association on this?<<<
They have been silence by the P.C. Police, some of whom are on this board.
"Understand". What a subjective word these days.
nonetheless, he continues to post to me KNOWING that i do NOT read anything FROM or TO him, as he is DEAD as far as i'm concerned.
talk about "HAS NO LIFE"!!!!
free dixie,sw
NCAA stands for "Nutty Communist Athletic Association".
Remember this is about BASKETBALL. Or is it? Looks more like organized pimps every day. Have your play offs in Indonesia. If the world is a lucky a tsunami will put you out of your misery, and ours.
I'll bumpt to that. Now there's something we can ALL agree on.
From what? The Constitution? No, the Constitution guaranteed slavery. Lincoln? No, he would continue slavery in order to preserve the union. From Northern abolitionists? No, there were just a handful and mostly in New England. From an army fighting to end slavery? No, the army was fighting to preserve the union. So why would an entire region secede because of slavery if what they were seceding from would not have prevented slavery?
Not sure now. The "from the hip" thing that I saw said 100K whites and 150K blacks. which was about equal to the largest number the confederates ever had in the field at once (on-paper numbers were higher). I'm not finding a good source for more reliable numbers, though. A state-by-state breakdown would be nice. I do know that a large segment of Union southern whites came from Tennessee. I'll keep looking...
Because while the Republicans were willing to accept slavery where it already existed, they were completely opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. Nothing, not the Corwin Amendment or the Republican Administration, guaranteed that a southern slave owner could move to any territory of the United States with his chattel. So the south took matters into their own hands, announced their secession, adopted a constitution that not only protected slavery and slave imports, but also guaranteed that any future states and territory would be slave, and launched their rebellion.
Per chance you have never read the speeches given on the floor of the US Senate and the House before secession began. I suggest you do that and pay particular attention to the speeches given by the Southern Senators re: shipping of cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar cane, etc. When you figure the freight rates utilized at that time, you will see the disparity involved, done solely to protect the Northern farmers and factories. Each of the Southern states had reasons for seperation,(none good though)and the rhetoric at that time was slavery and ownership of same. My great Grandfather wrote in the family bible his reasons for fighting for the South, and nowhere is slavery mentioned other than for his being against "any man owning the body of any other." Gee, sounds like a real slave owner to me, what do you think?
There you go. The mudslingers would have us all believe that the North was such a nobel enterprise that it fought the evil slavers to the South to end slavery. So it wasn't to end slavery at all then. It was to prevent slavery expasion to the West. And why would the North want to prevent such expansion? Purely humanitarian reasons?
Well, they tried secession and that didn't work out too good. Guess we gotta rule that one out.
Ya got me, pal. I'm only going on what they said in the Declarations of Causes issued by the secession conventions...
TEXAS:"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.It's pretty plain that protecting slavery was why the south seceded.That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
GEORGIA:Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides.
MISSISSIPPI: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
SOUTH CAROLINA: We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
In order to contain slavery to the areas where it existed. Keep slavery out of the territories and each new state created from them would be free. Each free state had two anti-slavery senators. New free states meant anti-slavery congressmen which would dilute the south's disproportionately high congressional representation. All would keep slavery penned up so that it would eventually die. So yeah, the Republicans looked forward to the day that slavery would die. They were just realistic about it.
So why did the southerners want to open the territories to slavery?
Uh huh. And you're posting on threads telling what time you're going to be at IHOP and what you're going to order. That, my addled friend, is the definition of "no life."
Really? What agency of the government was setting freight rates?
As for the rest, let me just quote Alexander Stephens (soon to be CSA VP):
The next evil that my friend complained of, was the Tariff. Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I commenced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the country almost as fearfully as the Slave question now is. In 1832, when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen? The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has triumphed. The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together-- every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and South Carolina, I think, voted for it, as did my honorable friend himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protection of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and I believe every other Southern man. So we ought not to complain of that.[Mr. Toombs: That tariff lessened the duties.]
[Mr. Stephens:[ Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as Southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are now at. If reason and argument, with experience, produced such changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857, on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriotism on the present vexed question? And who can say that by 1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country and threaten its peace and existence? I believe in the power and efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate triumph when properly wielded. (Applause.)
Another matter of grievance alluded to by my honorable friend, was the Navigation Laws. This policy was also commenced under the administration of one of these Southern Presidents, who ruled so well, and has been continued through all of them since. The gentleman's views of the policy of these laws and my own do not disagree. We occupied the same ground in relation to them in Congress. It is not my purpose to defend them now. But it is proper to state some matters connected with their origin.
One of the objects was to build up a commercial American marine by giving American bottoms the exclusive carrying trade between our own ports. This is a great arm of national power. This object was accomplished. We now have an amount of shipping, not only coastwise but to foreign countries, which puts us in the front rank of the nations of the world. England can no longer be styled the mistress of the seas. What American is not proud of the result? Whether those laws should be continued it another question. But one thing is certain, no President, Northern or Southern, has ever yet recommended their repeal. And my friend's effort to get them repealed has met with little favor North or South.
These were three of the grievances or grounds of complaint against the general system of our Government and its workings; I mean the administration of the federal government. As to the acts of several of the States, I shall speak presently, but these three were the main ones urged against the common Head. Now suppose it be admitted that all of these are evils in the system; do they overbalance and outweight the advantages and great good which this same Government affords in a thousand innumerable ways that cannot be estimated? Have we not at the South, as well as the North, grown great, prosperouse and happy under its operation? Has any part of the world ever shown such rapid progess in the development of wealth, and all the material resources of national power and greatness, as the Southern States have under the general government, notwithstanding all its defects?
source
Slavery vs. wages.
Strong sentiment on both sides of the WBTS but nowhere do I get that the war was over the moral issue of slavery.
"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and this I and my friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money." Private circular of Northern banker, late 1861.
The document you quote (incorrectly) is known as the "Hazard Circular." It's usually credited to London bankers, not northern ones. Sometimes it turns up in antisemitic rants, making the connection between the European banks and the Rothschilds. In any case, it's provenance is not much better than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It looks like you cut and pasted it out of the League of the South's site, since the error and attribution are identical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.