Although this is an emotional issue, which often seems to skew the results of a reader poll, the overwhelming results of last week’s Progress Poll would seem to indicate that readers strongly support the Confederate Flag remaining on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds.

With the question of “Should the Confederate Flag be removed completely from the S.C. Statehouse grounds,” 80 percent of those responding to the poll voted “no.”

The controversy goes back to the 1960s, when the Confederate Flag began flying over the South Carolina Statehouse to mark the 100th anniversary of the Civil War. But after the celebration of the anniversary was completed, the Confederate Flag was still flying over the statehouse.

In the 1980s, the flag’s status became an issue in South Carolina. Many blacks felt the flag was a symbol of hatred, and a reminder of the time of slavery in the South.

They felt the Confederate Flag did not represent all South Carolinians, and therefore it should not fly above the statehouse.

However, many others defended the flag flying over the statehouse. They noted that the flag represented the brave young men who lost their lives in the war. Many whose ancestors fought in the war felt removing the flag would be a slap in the face to those who perished in the war.

The fact that the flag no longer represented a sovereignty — as the S.C. state flag and the U.S. flag do — was brought up, with critics saying flying the Confederate flag over the statehouse would be similar to flying the British flag over the White House in Washington, D.C.

The issue continued to divide South Carolinians until Gov. Jim Hodges worked out a compromise between the opposing sides. Through the compromise, the Confederate flag would no longer fly above the statehouse, but would be moved to a monument to Confederate soldiers on the statehouse grounds.

That solution appeased people very briefly. Soon a movement was afoot to remove the flag from statehouse grounds completely. The NAACP encouraged businesses and tourists to boycott the state until the flag was removed.

Two weeks ago, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced it would move its 2010 baseball tournament from Myrtle Beach in order to honor the NAACP’s call for a boycott.

Many who voted against removing the flag from Statehouse grounds felt the matter was settled years ago, and did not deserve further attention.

“Compromise means both sides concede a little for something everyone can live with,” one reader wrote. “One side can turn around and say, ‘Now I want more.’ It ruins that side’s credibility.”

Others saw the suggestion of removing the flag as an attack on the history of the state. “Like it or not, that flag represents an important part of our state’s history. People think that by removing the flag, you can eliminate that part of our history.”

Others felt that giving in on the issue this time will not solve the problem, but just lead to another problem down the road.

“We worked out one compromise, then suddenly that wasn’t good enough. What do you think will happen if we work out another compromise?”

Of those voting “no,” most responded they felt removing the flag would be the right thing to do.

“If there’s something on our statehouse grounds that causes pain to a significant percentage of our population, it should be removed,” one reader said. “End of discussion.”

Another reader felt the flag had been used to hurt people too often.

“It represented slavery,” she wrote. “It caused thousands of young men to lose their lives on both sides of the war. It caused misunderstanding in racial relations, and now it could very well be causing economic pain for everyone in the state. Where will the hurting stop?”

This week’s question

President Barack Obama and his advisors are trying to push through a national healthcare plan.

Supporters hope to develop a program in which every American, regardless of income, can receive health care. They point out that medical costs continue to skyrocket, hurting the economy as employers struggle to provide this benefit and still make ends meet. The cost of insurance is so high that many are simply living without health insurance and, consequentially, ignoring health problems that could be easily cured if caught early enough.

Commercials on television point out flaws in the President’s program, but supporters of the president say the commercials are the work of medical lobbyist and major drug companies that benefit from the capitalistic healthcare system of today.

Detractors of the president’s program say that no matter how you paint it, the program is no more than socialized medicine.

While supporters brag about other countries that have socialized programs, critics point out that in those countries, the quality of healthcare has declined with the socialized program.

There is little financial gain to be sought by researching diseases, and therefore, large corporations are not willing to underwrite such efforts.

Detractors note that many Canadians, who have a socialized medicine program in their own country, come to the United States for serious operations because the quality of healthcare available here is worth paying for.

Others say that putting healthcare in the complete control of the government is just another way to increase the power of the federal government. They remind people of the old saying, “Any government powerful enough to give it citizens everything they want is also powerful enough to take everything away.

So should the federal government pursue a national healthcare plan? Let us know how you feel. Go to www.theeasleyprogress.com and vote. If you would like to make a comment on the issue, please send it to brobinson@theeasleyprogress.com or P.O. Box 709, Easley, SC 29641.