Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, February 6, 1993 TAG: 9302080262
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN T. BRISCOE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
GEORGIA'S GOV. ZELL MILLER DISHONORS HIS STATE'S HISTORY
RESACA, KENNESAW, Stone Mountain. If those names sound familiar, you probably are either a Georgian or a student of the War Between the States. You also are most likely aware that there is a new battle raging across Georgia - over the state flag. This fight has even been newsworthy enough to induce media columnist George Will (Jan. 19, "In Georgia, a governor takes his stand") to pontificate at great length about what Georgians should or should not do.Briefly, Georgia's governor, Zell Miller, has just about single-handedly decided to scrap the state flag in favor of a "politically correct," as yet undisclosed, banner. He would really like to dispose of the old standard before the 1996 Olympics bring worldwide media coverage to Atlanta, and, presumably, somehow personal embarrassment to him. Even though he says differently, Miller is ashamed enough of his Confederate heritage to make the "politically correct" symbolic gesture of striking the colors.
Two states - Georgia and Mississippi - incorporated the Confederate battle flag as part of their state banner. Seven other Southern states use recognizable elements of Confederate flags. Because of the abysmal state of public education and the deliberate avoidance of Confederate history in our schools, most Americans are quite unaware that these flags are derived from Rebel standards. Only the most obvious, Georgia and Mississippi, are threatened with historical cleansing.
Central to Miller's and Will's litany of complaint against Georgia's flag is the date of its adoption - 1956. For them, this date is uncomfortably close to the 1954 Supreme Court decision (Brown vs. Board of Education) that ushered in integration. The "politically correct" see this historical proximity as prima facie evidence that the 1956 flag was adopted as a sign of defiance of the Supreme Court and the government of the United States. Their argument would be more believable if both Miller and Will had not so meticulously avoided any reference to the one person most knowledgeable on the subject - the man who designed the flag and authored the legislation that adopted it.
Judge John Sammons Bell first conceived the idea of joining the battle flag and the state seal while attending a Confederate veterans' reunion in Millen, Ga., in 1924. According to a Georgia historian, Kelly Barrow, "Since 1956, Judge Bell has only been interviewed twice. In an article in the Dekalb News/Sun on July 13, 1988, he spoke about the charge that the new flag was motivated by integration. `Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth . . . every bit of it is untrue.' He added that anybody who says anything to the contrary is `perpetuating a willful lie.' "
In a July 5, 1992 interview that appeared in the Florida Times/Union, Judge Bell said "integration and the Supreme Court decision had absolutely nothing to do with the adoption of that flag. How can we forget our grandfathers who fought under this [Confederate battle] flag under the most difficult of circumstances, always outnumbered, underfed and underequipped? They displayed bravery and a dedication unparalleled in the annals of warfare. I cannot forget."
On March 28, 1992 the Atlanta Journal/Constitution and Gov. Miller joined forces to rewrite history. They cynically charged that the decision to change the flag in 1956 was a defiant message to the Supreme Court regarding its ruling of 1954. This charge has never been substantiated. Finally, on July 5, 1992, the Journal/Constitution admitted that there was no evidence to support its claim, and that the only thing it could uncover was what Judge Bell had said from the start: " . . . there was one reason and one reason only for the change: to create a living memorial to our great heritage and the brave people involved. And that is the truth . . . "
In a recent nationwide column, Will gleefully quoted Gov. Miller's "astringent" statement that "The Confederacy represents just 1 percent of Georgia's 260-year history." For Georgians, that means a huge sacrifice over four years for their state's role in what was arguably the single most important event in forging a nation from a collection of states. With what does the governor propose to replace the state flag? What would a Miller-inspired "politically correct" banner celebrate from Georgia's past?
First, there could be no mention of Georgia' pioneer history for fear of offending the dispossessed native Creek Indians. The colonial period is out since one might infer approval of the dominance of white Europeans. The antebellum and war years are off limits lest one appear to romanticize slavery. Reconstruction is universally repugnant and unsuitable, and according to the current mind-set, Southern history from 1876 to the present was completely dominated by one group's attempts to deprive the civil rights of another. That doesn't leave a lot of material to work with. I envision Miller's "politically correct" banner a colorless rectangle, devoid of symbols . . . a flag of surrender.
Georgia's flag belongs to the people of Georgia. It is not Gov. Miller's personal property, and it certainly doesn't belong to columnist George Will. If the people of Georgia want to change their flag, then so be it. But Gov. Miller's conduct on this subject looks like the very cheapest grandstanding. I cannot abide a man who so blithely denies and dishonors his own heritage. Judging from the public rage, neither can the people of Georgia.
John T. Briscoe of Roanoke is a member of the Fincastle Rifles, Sons of Confederate Veterans.