Georgia Sports Blog FanShop

August 4, 2006

NCAA May Expand Confederate Flag Ban

"I love black people."

From the AJC: "COLUMBIA, S.C. — The NCAA will consider expanding its ban of championship events in South Carolina, possibly disallowing baseball and football teams from hosting postseason games, because the Confederate flag is displayed on Statehouse grounds." Who does the expanded boycott impact?
"Furman's football team has held Division I-AA playoff games at Paladin Stadium in five of the past seven seasons. Clemson's baseball team hosted NCAA tournament games nine times since 1994. South Carolina's Sarge Frye Field was a host site for the tournament each season between 2000-2004."
You know it really is a shame that it had to come to this.

When I grew up that flag didn't have near the negative meaning of today. It hadn't made the full bore switch to the end all be all emblem of hate and racism.

I know that there's a reason and a time when you draw a line in the sand and say, "Enough is enough. I'm going to stand up for my heritage." But geez, is it really worth this? Is it really worth the loss of tournament events? Is it worth it to you financially as a South Carolina business owner? Apparently the answer has been yes.

And I respect that decision. Even though I don't agree with it. I respect someone being so stubborn as to making the choice to bring less tourists and revenue into their town just to prove a point. I respect it because it impacts them. They are paying the price for their decision.

Ok. Fine.

But, is it really worth losing the competitive advantage in sports that comes from hosting playoff games at home? To me, that would be the final straw. If I still lived in South Carolina, this would be the moment when I jumped ship on the "Keep the flag" movement.


Sound file from


Anonymous said...

Headline you'll never see:

"NASCAR to cancel race at Darlington in protest to South Carolina's use of Rebel Flag"

Honestly, the moment the NAACP stops relegating itself to this level of dumb sh!t will be the moment that the NAACP pulls itself out of 30 years of irrelevancy.

Unknown said...

I don't respect this decision and it has nothing to do with the rebel flag. If the NCAA really thinks this displaying the rebel flag on state grounds is such a horrible thing, then they should not allow school in those states to participate in NCAA sports. Don't do any of this namby pamby not allowing championships nonsense. Either kick them out or live with it. Draw a real line in the sand instead of a bunch of BS posturing.

Anonymous said...

You disappoint me greatly with your Frenchy stance Paul. While the South has moved on since 1865, some folks who were not alive to legitimize this specious offense they claim today mean to keep it real. So be it, you reap what you sow.

The NCAA is not the National Colored Athletic Association and its continued meddling in affairs OUTSIDE of its stated reason for existence may well earn it yet another expensive beatdown in Court.

The STATE of South Carolina funds its public Universities/Colleges who pay to belong to the NCAA. See where I'm going here? To date, the previous black bigot's call for boycotts of the State have had zero effect, but this threat by the NCAA takes it to a new level, one where the State of South Carolina would be well within its rights to seek redress though the Law. I hope the Governor orders his Attorney General to do precisely that and put a permanent end to this bullscat.

Cooler Czar said...

I certainly respect the opinion shared by Paul and dante, but I have to disagree with your stance. Whether pollitically correct individuals like it or not, the Civil War did occur, and it was one of the most significant events in our nation's history, forever shaping the future of our great country. I have no respect for the idea of slavery, but I have a great deal of respect for the concept of men fighting and giving their lives over principles they believe in at the heart of their being. Are we not to commemorate, or at least recognize events in our nation's history. I argure we should never forget such events that remind us where we have been, and hopefully steer us in different directions in the future. That said, where else in the country could you possibly find more appropriate to display such a reminder than at the memorial to confederate soldiers in South Carolina? Certainly, removing this one memorial "couldn't hurt", but where does that stop? Should we ultimately bulldoze all historic sites, possibly the entire city of Charleston, because they serve as a reminder of events from our history?

I belive it is not the NCAA's place to determine what constitutes fit memorials to our nation's past. But, I also think the NCAA shouldn't have arbitraily shortened games. And I damn sure think it is bullsh!t that I have to get up at 5:30 am on 8/2 to get to town in time to wait for the "tailgate starter whistle" to blow from Mike Adams' ass at 7, but that has nothing to do with the NCAA and is probably an entirely different subject, already well documented on this fine blog.

Unknown said...

South Carolina has no legal case that I can see. The NCAA is a private organization; not a government entity.

They can play their championships anywhere they want.

I'm an advocate of States Rights. If the US Government were the ones issuing this edict to remove Old Glory from state buildings, I would be enraged as a federal tax payer. And as a former resident of South Carolina.

Unfortunately for the Gamecocks and Tigers, the NCAA can do what it wants with its own tourney. And South Carolina citizens will have to this issue worth this sacrafice. To me it wouldn't be.

BTW -- as for me being frenchy. My entire family tree has been in the South since pre-Civil War. I can't wait to stand in The Grove in late September and listen to Dixie performed by an interracial band who isn't ashamed of the song.

I'm not ashamed of the confederate flag. I'm just not willing as a sports fan to let that particular symbol impact my preferred sports team's opportunity for success. And as a Gamecock, Tiger or Furmie, that's what you're looking at.


Anonymous said...

It sucks that people have such a lack of understanding concerning that period of our nation's history that this is actually a big issue now. There were approximately 60 to 80k black men that bravely voluntarily fought for the Confederacy, I wonder if the folks bitching about the flag actually knew that? I would say "no" with 99.9% confidence. Before you start griping, open a damn book people.

Anonymous said...

You're a formjer resident of the state of South Carolina Paul? You havemy sympathies and condolences.

Anonymous said...

Paul While the NCAA is a "private organization" they get a lot of juice from the government. I can see bills being introduced shortly by the congressional delagation from SC to investigate the NCAA for whatever. The NCAA is a politcal animal and this is politics pure and simple. SC should do everything they can to kick the NCAA in its holier than thou nuts.

And by the way the congress thing is why you will never see a state school given the death penalty ever.

Anonymous said...

Imo, some of y'all are nuts. That's the best way to put it. The idea that there might be some sort of legal backlash against the NCAA on this is about as realistic as Georgia Tech not lying and cheating. As if any federal court (and yes, that is where jurisdiction would lie) would even entertain it.

But that isn't the main reason why I think you are nuts. ALL of this talk about heritage, and honorable soldiers is bunk, pure and simple. The Rebel Flag use (unlike Georgia, it isn't even part of the stste flag) is just an in your face "fergit hell" gesture, and YOU KNOW IT. The rest of this is just denial, like the fat girl who says she has big bones, while sucking a Big Mac. Yeah, surrree.

Anonymous said...

There were approximately 60 to 80k black men that bravely voluntarily fought for the Confederacy

This is incorrect. The only reason that blacks fought the Confederacy (and it was only at the end of the war when the South was suffering signficant defeats and needed more men to make up for casualties and desertions; quite frankly, given that I'm away from home right now, I can't remember and/or check if any actually did fight for the Confederacy) was because Jefferson Davis decided to offer them some emancipation in return for the fighting. I'm not really sure that can be construed as voluntarily. "If you fight, we'll grant you the most basic right of human existence." Yup, that's voluntary. The South vehemently opposed the use of black soldiers in its army until it had no other option.

Anonymous said...

YOU are incorrect SSB Charley, and believe me, I am qualified to make such a statement. Someone who is more qualified than either of us to refute your statements is the honorable abolitionist Frederick Douglass, since he was ACTUALLY THERE. Here is an exact quote from Mr. Douglass.

"There are at present many Coloured men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and labourers, but real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets".

--- Frederick Douglas - Autumn Of 1861

#1) This shows, as I said, that there were black men in the Confederate Army...and
#2) Fully flys in the face of your assertion that blacks were only in the Confederate Army at the end of the war due to heavy Confederate losses. Perhaps you do need to get back home, but only so you can read a book.

Anonymous said...

That's amazing, given that Jefferson Davis and General Lee had no intention of having blacks fight for the Confederacy until the cause was practically lost. You can cite one quote, I can cite a lot more official documents and statements of Confederate leaders to the contrary. I'm not sure what you mean by "there", but if you mean the Confederate army, that's incorrect. Douglass was in the north, having escaped slavery in 1838, advising Mr. Lincoln about emancipation and other issues affecting blacks at the time. If by "there" you mean 1861, so what. It's not as if information was highly transmittable at that time, particularly given the dearth of communication between north and south. Shoot, I can make proclamations about the US military right now, with far more information at my disposal, and still not be accurate.

In January, 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of the Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers since the Union was using black troops. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived. Confederate President Jefferson Davis refused to consider Cleburne's proposal and forbade further discussion of the idea. The concept, however, did not die. By the fall of 1864, the South was losing more and more ground, and some believed that only by arming the slaves could defeat be averted. On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed General Order 14, and President Davis signed the order into law. The order was issued March 23, 1865, but only a few African American companies were raised, and the war ended before they could be used in battle.

I can dig up for more cites from rigorously reviewed publications as well. Battle Cry of Freedom being one.

Anonymous said...

The quote you listed is in reference to actively recruiting only slaves and only organizing them in their own units. This neglects to mention one fair sized segment and another large one. Your comment does not take into account:

#1) Free blacks who fought, and

#2) blacks who fought from the beginning of the war in units with white soldiers. From the outset, blacks were FREQUENTLY allowed to join although they were not actively recruited and many times not found as enlisted on muster rolls. Your comment is also interesting if you are maintaining that no blacks fought for the south until 1865, considering a few facts I can remember off the top of my head...

a) Black private John Wagner was wounded at Ft. Wagner while repulsing the charge from the famous black unit, the 54th Massachusetts. Even more impressive was Wagner's ability to travel back in time, as this must have been the case since this assault occured in 1863, a time in which you state no blacks were fighting for the Confederacy.

b) The highest ranking black man on EITHER side of the conflict was a 3rd Sergeant in the 34th Texas, James Washington, and obtained this ranking by 1864. (Again, impressive...NCO, accomplished careerman, time traveler.)

Now a few facts I admittedly had to go back to the books for.
-The Richmond Howitzers were an artillery outfit that was partially manned by black militiamen, and saw action in the first Manassas, 4 years before you say blacks enlisted for the Confederacy. Two black units, one slave and one free, also fought that day at Manassas.
-And to remove bias from the equation, let me quote someone from the corner which you seem to identify...

Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing General Stonewall Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862 noted:

"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number Confederate troops. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

And that's from a Yankee. If you want to quote facts, I can go all day.

Anonymous said...

From the Wall Street Journal, 1997(though the link cuts and pastes):

But what many historians find outrageous and offensive are the claims being made by men like Mr. Condon Though he later revised his estimate to 50,000 blacks who "served in the Confederate Army," Mr, Smith at American University puts the number of black rebels "actually shooting people" at 30,000. Most historians regard this figure as inflated-by almost 30,000.

"It's pure fantasy," contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: "It's b.s., wishful thinking." Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. "Of course, if I documented 12. someone would start adding zeros," he says.

We can keep going and citing various sources all we like, but it's obvious you have your preferred sources and I mine. Regardless, there is little debate that blacks were second class citizens (to the extent they were even considered citizens) and the Confederacy was run by a bunch of white men interested in continuing the subjugation of the black race for their own economic interests. I don't find it surprising that most blacks have major problems with any vestige of the Confederacy, particularly ones, like the battle flag, that racists politicians and their ilk have wrapped themselves in in opposition to things like integration and voting rights.

Copyright 2009 Georgia Sports Blog. Powered by Blogger Blogger Templates create by Deluxe Templates. WP by Masterplan