Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Belvidere Home Prices and Home Values | Zillow

 

Belvidere Home Prices & Values

Zillow Home Value Index

The Zillow Home Value Index is the median Zestimate valuation for a given geographic area on a given day. Learn more

$117,500

  • 4.4% 1-year change
  • 7.1% 1-year forecast
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = "[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" NS = "http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" />Apr 2014Jun 2015May 2016

The median home value in Belvidere is $117,500. Belvidere home values have gone up 4.4% over the past year and Zillow predicts they will rise 7.1% within the next year. The median list price per square foot in Belvidere is None.

Mortgage delinquency is the first step in the foreclosure process. This is when a homeowner fails to make a mortgage payment. The percent of delinquent mortgages in Belvidere is 5.6%, which is lower than the national value of 6.0%. With U.S. home values having fallen by more than 20% nationally from their peak in 2007 until their trough in late 2011, many homeowners are now underwater on their mortgages, meaning they owe more than their home is worth. The percent of Belvidere homeowners underwater on their mortgage is 30.8%, which is the same as Rockford Metro at 30.8%.

Read more

Relative ZHVI
- +

Belvidere Market Overview

Data through May 31, 2015
  • $117,500 ZHVI
  • 7.1% 1-yr forecast

    The Zillow Home Value Forecast is Zillow's prediction of what the Zillow Home Value Index will be one year from now. Learn more

    (May 31, 2016)

  • No data Median listing price
  • $134,900 Median sale price
  • Zillow Home Value Index Median list price Median sale price

    All homes Studio 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom 4 bedroom 5+ bedrooms Single family Condo / coop Duplex / triplex Top tier Middle tier Bottom tier

Belvidere Home Prices and Home Values | Zillow

Letter: Stand up to Rauner's anti-union efforts - Opinion - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

 

  • I get the idea Gov. Rauner has no interest in seeing the existence of any union in Illinois continue as we know it.
    He pretends to want to give property owners some relief through a bill that also includes language exempting municipalities from adhering to prevailing wage laws concerning contract bids. That bill was voted down. I'm sure he now will say it's the unions that are keeping us from getting our taxes lowered.
    Why doesn't he offer a bill concerning property taxes with no strings tied to it? Probably because he knows that is irresponsible and will make the budget hole even bigger. Every move he makes is aimed at getting rid of unions and making this a right-to-work state.
    Do people understand why unions were formed in the first place? To keep people like him from taking advantage and to give workers a say at their place of employment. He wants to make it so that unions don't have the money to fight for the workers they represent. Rauner has all the money he would ever need, but he says it isn't fair for us to band together to try to make our lives better through collective bargaining.
    Stand together, state workers and union families. Make Rauner a one-term governor. Call and email your lawmakers and oppose his legislation and tactics. Contact the governor, too. There are better ways to balance the budget than on the backs of the people who provide services to the public.
    Gary Shepherd
    Springfield
  • The State Journal-Register

    Writer

    Posted Jun. 29, 2015 at 10:02 PM

Above is from:  Letter: Stand up to Rauner's anti-union efforts - Opinion - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL

Both mobile and landlines to pay 911 costs

 

image

image

Monday, June 29, 2015

Rauner Goes MIA In Eyes Of News Media | WNIJ and WNIU

Even as Illinois heads toward a partial government shutdown, Governor Bruce Rauner has largely stayed out of the public eye.

If you watch TV at all, it probably doesn't seem like it's been a long time since you heard from Gov. Rauner.

He's got a campaign-style ad running statewide.

"With your help, I'm going to keep fightin' to grow our economy and fix our broken state government," Rauner said in his ad.

In Rauner’s opinion piece within the Chicago Tribune, he updated what he wants legislators to do before he'll negotiate on revenue for the state budget.

But he hasn't subjected himself to answering questions about it.

That's not to say he's gone missing completely; he stopped by the Springfield farmer's market over the weekend, and he visited a Vietnam War memorial in Jacksonville last week. He also met with reporters after tornadoes touched down in Coal City; questions then were limited to the emergency.

Otherwise, the last time Rauner set aside time to answer questions from the media was June 12. That’s more than two weeks ago

Above is from:  Rauner Goes MIA In Eyes Of News Media | WNIJ and WNIU

Health-care union launches anti-Rauner television ads

image

SPRINGFIELD — Just as Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner has taken to the airwaves in the fight over the state budget, a labor union representing home-care workers is launching television ads this week to argue against cuts.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents 57,000 workers affected by the state budget, is running two 30-second ads in several television markets, including the Quad-Cities and the Springfield-Decatur area.

In one ad, Betty Wessing, an elderly woman who uses a walker, talks about the importance of a state program that allows her to stay at home. Without the home health care aide provided by the state, she says, she could be forced into a nursing home.

She also takes a shot at Rauner, who was a businessman before becoming governor in January.

"The rich is just getting richer, the poor is just getting poorer," she says.

The ads come as Rauner and Democrats in the General Assembly are at loggerheads over a state spending plan. Rauner last week vetoed most of the budget sent to him by the Legislature, saying it was unconstitutional because it was out of balance by more than $3 billion.

The move means Illinois is poised to start a new fiscal year on Wednesday without a budget in place. Rauner wants the House and Senate to approve a property tax freeze, term limits and workers' compensation reform and overhaul the political remapping process before he'll consider some kind of tax increase to close the gap.

"Showing the authentic and very real personal stories of people affected by Gov. Rauner's choices is part of our strategy because we know that the people of Illinois want to see these programs preserved," SIEU Healthcare Illinois Vice President James Muhammad said.

In a second SEIU ad, Terry Lango worries that his disabled brother, Wade, would have to go to a nursing home if he cannot get home care services provided by the state.

"He's going to a nursing home," Terry Lango says. "And he's going to die in a nursing home. And I'll die, too, without him."

The timing of the ads also coincides with the expiration of SEIU's labor agreement with the state.

"Contracts for 57,000 child care and home health care workers expire June 30th, and the governor has made demands and proposed budget cuts that would lead to massive layoffs and lead to enormous damage to our low-income workforce," Muhammad said.

The union declined to say how much the ads cost but called the campaign "unprecedented."

Rauner, meanwhile, is running ads worth more than $800,000 criticizing Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan.

"Illinois is at a crossroads," the female announcer says. "Mike Madigan and the politicians he controls refuse to change. They're saying 'no' to spending discipline, 'no' to job-creating economic reforms, 'no' to term limits. All they want is higher taxes. Again."

Above from:  Health-care union launches anti-Rauner television ads

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Poll: Gov. Bruce Rauner's Support Slumps | David Ormsby

 

Since Governor Bruce Rauner unleashed his nearly $2 million TV Ad buy two weeks ago, political and media pundits have been almost exclusively focused on diagnosing the 30-second spot's 20-second attack of House Speaker Michael Madigan.
What has escaped any substantive analysis is the ad's 10-second promotion of Rauner.
"The ads are not very helpful to the [budget] negotiations," said Paul Simon Public Policy Institute executive director David Yepsen on WGN's "Sunday Spin" last weekend to host Rick Pearson. "Republicans have been attacking Mike Madigan for years hoping to rub off on Democratic legislators and it hasn't seemed to work."
Some version of Yepsen's comments have been repeatedly echoed by political and media insiders throughout the last couple weeks.
But the 10-seconds of Rauner's self-promotional message has been widely overlooked.
"Change in Springfield isn't easy. But you didn't send me here to do what's easy. With your help, I'm goin' to keep fightin' to grow our economy, and fix our broken state government," Rauner says in the spot.
The Rauner ad may be as much about boosting Rauner's political standing as undermining Madigan's.
Why?
The governor's job approval rating in multiple key legislative districts has fallen - and in some cases sharply - in four legislative districts recently polled. A May 31 survey by The Illinois Observer's e-newsletter, The Insider in the Southern Illinois district of State Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), for example, found that Rauner had an approval rating of just 29.3% and a disapproval of 43.9% or a net approval of minus 14.6 points despite winning Bradley's district over Governor Pat Quinn, 63-31%.
Now a new poll of 711 likely 2016 voters commissioned by The Illinois Observer reveals that Rauner's statewide job approval has fallen to a new low. Moreover, his approval ratings are now upside down.
The June 20 survey conducted by Chicago-based Ogden & Fry, the only polling firm which correctly predicted Rauner's five-point victory margin over Quinn, shows that just 35.7% of voters approve of the way the governor is handling his job while 46.7% disapprove or net approval of minus 11 points.
"Nearly half of respondents disapproved of the Governor's job performance," Ogden & Fry pollster Tom Swiss wrote in his polling memo.
Oof.
The poll, which had a +/- 3.75% margin of error, identified 17.6% were undecided.
In our last poll on April 22, after Rauner's first 100 days, the governor's approval stood at 40.6% and disapproval at 36.3%. In the last 60 days, as confrontation with Democrats has grown, the governor's approval has dropped by five points and disapproval has grown by 10.
After the governor's first 30 days, an Ogden & Fry survey conducted for The Illinois Observer pegged Rauner's approval at 43.1% and disapproval at 28.2% with 28.6% undecided.
At the start of his term, a January 14 We Ask America poll placed Rauner's approval rating at 52%, with just 23% disapproving and remainder undecided.
Rauner's supporters and, crucially, undecided voters have been shifting into the disapproval column.
Moreover, the governor's 35.7% job approval - after five days of statewide advertising promoting his "change in Springfield" message - is only a hair above the 34% registered by Quinn in a November 22-25, 2013 Public Policy Polling survey. Quinn did have a higher disapproval rating, 60%, to Rauner's 46.7%.
Meanwhile, despite the governor's sinking public support, 2016 likely voters have failed to embrace the role of Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan as a "check and balance" on the governor's agenda, according to the survey.
In response to the question "Do you approve or disapprove of Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan serving as a check and balance on Governor Bruce Rauner's agenda?", only 30.1% of voters approved and 41.5% disapproved and 28.5% are undecided, the poll says.
They're in a poor position as a PR counterweight.
In the battle over the current political stalemate, neither side holds a public opinion advantage with likely 2016 voters.
Still, the bigger fight - and likely point of Rauner's advertising - is over the 2016 election rather the FY 2016 budget.
"I would suggest that this a longer-term effort than just the current stalemate," Pearson said on Sunday.
Ditto Yepsen.
"I think it [Rauner's ad] may be part of a longer game that the governor and Republicans are playing," said Yepsen. "They want to make gains in the legislative elections in 2016. I'm assuming it's part of longer-term strategy to soften up the Democrats."
More than to "soften up Democrats," the Rauner ad campaign is also aimed at rebuilding the governor's public support. Otherwise, Rauner-funded legislative candidates in 2016 face the same dilemma that Democrats faced under the unpopular Quinn - being associated with a deeply unpopular governor.
There may lie the reason that Madigan has taken to referring to GOP lawmakers as "Rauner Republicans."
Stay tuned.

davidormsby@davidormsby.com

David also edits The Illinois Observer: The Insider, in which this article first appeared.

Follow David Ormsby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidOrmsby

Above is from:  Poll: Gov. Bruce Rauner's Support Slumps | David Ormsby

Friday, June 26, 2015

An exclusive look at the draft schedule for Pope Francis’s U.S. trip this fall - The Washington Post

 

By Michelle Boorstein June 26 at 8:51 PM

Pope Francis will meet with inmates in a Philadelphia prison gym, poor migrants at a D.C. church — where he may serve them lunch — and disadvantaged youth at an East Harlem elementary school, according to a working itinerary of his visit this fall to the United States that was shared with The Washington Post.

The itinerary for the trip — the pope’s first to the United States — is not final. The Vatican is expected to release an official version in the next few days, and church officials Friday emphasized that even that version could change before Francis arrives Sept. 22. A person close to the U.S. planning process provided The Post with the itinerary, and a second person knowledgeable of the Vatican team confirmed multiple details of the document.

The working itinerary reveals the pope’s plans to speak repeatedly about the plight of immigrants, including at Our Lady Queen of Angels School and on Independence Mall park in Philadelphia before tens of thousands of people. The Argentine pope will often speak in Spanish during the trip, the itinerary shows, highlighting the origins of the Catholic Church’s first Latin American pontiff and the fact that the U.S. church is one-third Hispanic — and quickly becoming more so.

image

An exclusive look at the draft schedule for Pope Francis’s U.S. trip this fall - The Washington Post

Rauner: I'm vetoing the budget, offering Chicago pension relief - Chicago Tribune

image

The people of Illinois sent me to Springfield to end the era of unbalanced budgets and runaway debt. The road back to fiscal sanity starts today with my veto of a budget that is nearly $4 billion out of balance and includes no reform. We cannot accept the status quo of throwing more taxpayer money into a broke and broken system.

Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past — just kicking the can and raising taxes without real reform — now is our chance to transform Illinois to make it more competitive and compassionate.

 

 

The Rauner administration is proposing reforms that are reasonable and balanced, where many of the elements have been adopted by other states as well as the federal government. If Republicans and Democrats commit to working together, we can reach a bipartisan, common-sense agreement to reverse Illinois’ economic decline and set the stage for a bright economic future. In fact, we now have the opportunity not only to turn around Illinois but to put Chicago and its school system on a sustainable path.

Our plan builds on the compromise our administration offered before the regular legislative session concluded in May:

8

Job-creating economic reforms: To compete and grow, employers of all sizes have made it clear that Illinois needs true workers’ compensation reform to ensure that covered injuries actually occurred in the workplace and that medical payments be comparable to costs incurred under private health insurance.

Job creators have also asked that we enact meaningful lawsuit reform to restrict venue shopping, tie jury awards more directly to the responsible party and base payments on actual medical costs.

Property tax freeze: Our administration’s original legislation called for a permanent property tax freeze and the ability for local governments and school districts to control their costs on bidding and contracting. Now, in the spirit of compromise, we are willing to shorten the freeze portion of our proposal to two years.

cComments

  • @edonley Look in the mirror at at "Taker". You work for and you vote for a scumbag like Mike Madigan and don't even see the evil of your ways. Here's a little definition of "Taker" for you: "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." Is that...

    BizzzB

    at 8:01 AM June 26, 2015

At the request of Senate President John Cullerton, we are prepared to reform Illinois’ school funding formula as part of our tax-freeze package. A commission charged with rewriting the formula would report back by the end of 2016, with the current funding formula expiring six months later. As part of the compromise, we would allow the state to pay normal costs for Chicago teacher pensions, as it does for all other Illinois school districts, in exchange for sunsetting Chicago’s special block grants.

Term limits and redistricting reform: We are willing to compromise on timing by asking legislative leaders to publicly commit to giving term limits and redistricting reform a vote on the floors of both chambers sometime in the next 10 months, in time to get them on the 2016 ballot.

Comprehensive pension reform: Government pensions are among the largest cost drivers for state and local governments. We are willing to give local governments the short-term relief they have requested in exchange for a true, long-term solution.

We can deliver comprehensive pension reform by taking elements of President Cullerton’s consideration model, along with revised portions of our administration’s plan, to encourage many government employees to move into Tier 2 or a new Tier 3 program. In the compromise, we are willing to support Cook County’s pension reform plan and allow Chicago and downstate communities to implement longer, slower pension payment schedules.

Pension reform is not a prerequisite to signing the budget, but it should be completed this year. I’m committed to it, and I ask for the state’s legislative leaders to be equally committed.

These proposals reflect significant compromises by our administration. They help save Chicago from years of financial mismanagement while making sure local communities without Chicago’s clout get relief. These structural reforms also allow us to begin tax reform that marries our desire to be compassionate with our need to be competitive.

We will work day and night with members of the General Assembly to reform state government, modernize our tax code and enact a balanced budget as part of a truly comprehensive solution. Together, we can get this done. The people of Illinois deserve it.

Bruce Rauner is the governor of Illinois

Rauner: I'm vetoing the budget, offering Chicago pension relief - Chicago Tribune

Chicago officials reject Rauner's pension bone amid budget veto - Chicago Tribune#page=1#page=1

image

Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner sought Thursday to ratchet up pressure on Democratic lawmakers to approve his pro-business, anti-union agenda, vetoing the bulk of the state budget while dangling an offer of pension relief for Chicago and Cook County.

While Rauner argued that the pension help was part of an effort to compromise on his legislative wish list, the idea was quickly rejected by city officials who said it may do more harm than good. At the same time, Rauner refused to back away from some of his more controversial ideas, portending no easy resolution to the budget stalemate that could force government to start shutting down if a spending plan is not in place by July 1.

A day earlier, Rauner approved one bill that would free up money so elementary and high schools can open in the fall, though everything else — from paychecks for prison guards to home care for the elderly — is at risk.

 

The standoff boils down to this: Rauner has tried to leverage the budget-making process to push through sweeping changes that he argues will save money and boost jobs and the economy. Democrats who control the legislature have repeatedly rejected his ideas as attacks on the working class and instead pushed through a budget that's more than $3 billion short.

Rauner told lawmakers in his veto message that the financial plan sent to him by Democrats was "an unbalanced and therefore unconstitutional budget." But he has not offered an alternative beyond his initial budget proposal in February, which also would spend billions of dollars more than available revenue.

Instead, he doubled down on his demands Thursday, releasing a statement to the Tribune Editorial Board before the veto was made public that said "now is our chance to transform Illinois to make it more competitive and compassionate."

 

While Rauner billed his statement as a compromise offer to Democrats who have so far refused to grant him his "turnaround agenda," it did not appear that he had significantly altered his key demands.

"It isn't a compromise position," said Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. "This is where he's been from the very beginning."

For example, a key area of disagreement between Rauner and Democrats has been his proposal to freeze property taxes in conjunction with removing requirements that local governments bargain with unions over wages and pay prevailing union salaries on construction projects. That proposal was recently brought for a series of votes in the House. Democrats advanced the property tax freeze idea but rejected the provisions to weaken union rights, while Republicans refused to participate and called the process a sham.

 

 

"Now, in the spirit of compromise, we are willing to shorten the (tax) freeze portion of our proposal to two years," Rauner wrote.

But a document distributed by the Rauner administration in April contradicts that claim. At the time, Rauner was seeking legislation that "freezes property taxes for two years," according to the document.

Rauner also continued to push for changes to the workers' compensation system and the rules governing civil lawsuits, even though Democrats have staged a number of votes and hearings to display their unwillingness to deliver the exact changes that he wants.

One area where Rauner might have backed down is his push to impose term limits on elected officials and to change the way legislative maps are drawn — efforts that could weaken Democrats' control of the General Assembly. In the past, Rauner has demanded passage of legislation on those items. On Wednesday, he wrote that he would settle for a public commitment from legislative leaders that they'll hold votes on the measures in the next 10 months.

What Rauner would be willing to offer in exchange was not clear. For months, he has held out the possibility that he would agree to tax hikes to help fill the budget hole if Democrats granted him his legislative wish list. But in vetoing the budget and reiterating his demands Thursday, he made no mention of new revenue to fill the shortfall.

Currie, who serves as House Speaker Michael Madigan's top deputy, said Rauner's offers would not sway Democrats.

"He's made these pitches, he's made them before," Currie said. "That he chooses to make them again less than a week away from the close of the budget year I think suggests a tin ear, but that doesn't mean it isn't an ear that can listen and learn."

In a new wrinkle, Rauner said that he would support a proposal for the state to pick up more of the tab for Chicago teacher pensions, an issued pushed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel as Chicago Public Schools faces a massive pension payment due Tuesday.

Emanuel administration officials said that the mayor was blindsided by Rauner's school pension proposal, adding that the Republican governor's solution would hurt CPS.

For much of the last year, Emanuel has railed against what he characterizes as an inequity in how Chicago's teacher pensions are funded compared with the rest of the school districts in Illinois. While Chicago taxpayers help fund the rest of the state's teacher pensions through state income taxes, they also fund Chicago's teacher pensions through city property taxes. Emanuel repeatedly has called for an end of that double payment to fund teacher pensions.

Rauner attempted to address the issue Thursday by offering to have the state pay for the district's so-called normal pension costs — the annual amount CPS owes to the pension fund, not including years' worth of missed payments that were signed off on by state lawmakers. In exchange for paying for those annual pension costs, Rauner said the state would stop funding block grants for the district as part of a new school funding formula he said would be put into effect by the end of 2016.

Emanuel officials, however, argued that the deal would cost CPS $400 million.

Kelley Quinn, a spokeswoman for Emanuel, said CPS currently receives $600 million in state block grants aimed at helping pay for programs that address the district's high percentage of children who have special needs or live in poverty. The district's current "normal" pension costs are $200 million.

"We're pleased that, for the first time, an Illinois governor has committed the state to addressing the pension inequity at Chicago Public Schools," Quinn said in a statement.

"Unfortunately, the Governor's proposal would actually further reduce CPS funding by taking away block grant funding, costing the system hundreds of millions of dollars."

Under Rauner's plan, CPS would be left to rely on a new state commission rewriting the education funding formula to make up the lost revenue.

Another drawback to Rauner's offer for CPS: It doesn't cover the district's annual costs to repay unfunded pension liabilities, which Quinn pegged at $500 million.

"For all the other districts in Illinois, the state doesn't just pay for the normal pension costs, but also the unfunded liability," said a top Emanuel administration source who was not authorized to speak publicly about Rauner's plan. "That's not a very even trade."

Recognizing that a deal is unlikely before lawmakers return to the Capitol next Tuesday, the last day of the current budget year, Madigan had scheduled the chamber to hear from state agencies about their plans to deal with a shutdown.

"It seems the governor missed an opportunity to avoid disrupting the lives of many, many middle-class families for the sake of nonbudget issues," Madigan said in a statement.

Republicans scoffed at the attempt to place the blame for a possible shutdown on Rauner.

COMMENTS:

Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, contended that Democrats were at fault and took particular aim at Madigan, whom Rauner has labeled as an obstructionist in an ongoing television advertising blitz.

"The governor has been trying to do all spring what the voters sent him to do, which was change the direction of the state," Murphy said. "At the end of the day, Speaker Madigan has pushed us into a situation where we can either accept his status quo or we have to have a fight.

"The question I have is, if you are satisfied with the way Illinois was operating, I will lay down and let Mike Madigan have his way," Murphy said. "But if you want to go in a different direction, unfortunately we have to stand up to the guy."

Caught in the middle are those who rely on government services, including social service providers who spent months lobbying lawmakers to preserve funding for programs that pay for services for the poor, elderly and disabled. Rauner had proposed slashing spending on those programs, but the Democrat-passed budget that Rauner vetoed would have largely kept their funding intact.

"When the governor vetoes these budget bills that were crafted from this process, that's basically saying, 'Your concerns are not that important,' " said Amber Smock, director of advocacy for Access Living, a nonprofit that advocates for people with disabilities.

"Everybody worked really hard on that budget, and now it got turned down and we don't' know what's next," Smock said. "That's really scary. We don't know what's going to happen."

Meanwhile, pressure was relieved Thursday in Rauner's simmering stalemate with the largest state employee union, whose contract expires June 30. The administration and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31 reached a deal to extend talks on a new contract through July, putting off the possibility of a lockout or a strike in the coming weeks.

Chicago Tribune's Rick Pearson, Bill Ruthhart and Hal Dardick contributed.

Kim Geiger reported from Chicago

Above is available at:  Chicago officials reject Rauner's pension bone amid budget veto - Chicago Tribune#page=1#page=1

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Boone County animal-control center bids far exceed $800K budget - News - Rockford Register Star - Rockford, IL

 

  • By Ben Stanley
    Rockford Register Star

    Posted Jun. 22, 2015 at 3:36 PM
    Updated Jun 22, 2015 at 11:57 PM

    BELVIDERE — Three bids Boone County received for building an animal-control center far exceed the architect's cost estimate last July.
    Voters approved a referendum in November to build the facility using $800,000 generated over three years by a small property tax increase.
    The referendum ended years of debate over how to pay for a new center. The state of the facility has been an issue for years. In 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited it for several violations.
    The $800,000 estimate given by architect Mark Schmidt in July 2014 influenced the County Board's decision to seek that amount in the referendum. The county reached out to 10 contractors for the project; three submitted bids Friday:
    • Sjostrom & Sons: $1,242,800.
    • Rockford Structures Construction Co.: $1,099,000.
    • Larson & Larson Builders: $1,080,800.
    "Things have changed in the marketplace in the last year,"
    Schmidt said. "We added square footage to the building and we're building in a different location. All of those things were variables I couldn't have estimated in 2014."
    The original plans were for a 2,700-square-foot building on a lot off Highway 76 just north of Maple Crest Care Center. New plans call for a 3,500-square-foot building on a lot off Squaw Prairie Road just east of the original site.
    The Roads and Capital Improvements Committee held a special meeting tonight  to review the county's options — scrap the current plans and take bids in 60 to 90 days for a cheaper design, find more money for the project, or make a commitment to the low bidder on the condition that costs are trimmed from the design to keep the building within budget while keeping its blueprint intact.
    "We pushed for a tighter bid schedule than we probably should have," committee member Karl Johnson said during the meeting.
    Without an additional funding source, and fearing that rejecting the bids to draft a new building design could set construction back another calendar year, the committee voted to make a conditional commitment to Larson & Larson, pending approval by Boone County State's Attorney Michelle Courier.
    Schmidt listed 10 ways the county could shave costs from the design. Among them: decreasing superficial elements, such as the amount of stone siding on the building; and making interior changes, such as reducing the number of fenced stalls for animals. The new building keeps the same number of stalls as the old one.
    "As I understand it, the capacity of the current building was never the problem, it was the quality of the building itself," Schmidt said.
    Animal Services Operations Supervisor Roger Tresemer said he doesn't want the building's animal capacity to be reduced.
    "Some of the niceties for the office areas could be brought aboard later," he said. "I thought ... the whole reason of building a new shelter was you'd have a safer, cleaner, easier-to-sanitize environment but still house at least the same number of animals."
    Ben Stanley: 815-987-1369; bstanley@rrstar.com; @ben_j_stanley
  • By Ben Stanley
    Rockford Register Star

    Rockford Register Star

     

  • Voice of the Reader: Rauner's union-busting ruse : Opinion

    image

    To the Editor:

    You all sure bought the Rauner, anti-union rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

    I guess I am one of those voracious union bosses since I led the teachers in Carterville for over 20 years. Decent contract, salaries and working conditions but not a cent in my pocket except what all the teachers got. The governor wants to see right-to-work legislation, which he hopes will do away with collective bargaining. Who benefits by that? Not the state but corporate Illinois wanting lower wages to increase their bottom line.

    Whether workers are union or not, they benefit by union insistence on living wages and safe, decent working conditions. Right-to-work means no due process in firing and the right to work at lower wages.

    Bringing 'business' to Illinois will happen, lower wages, little to no regulation and bigger bottom line are enticements. Of course, that means less taxes paid into state coffers, especially if you add in corporate tax breaks. Abusers to the system? There are due process rules so that shirkers can be fired. I have no sympathy for Speaker Madigan. Democrats have given the electorate what they demand but have not provided the revenues to to pay for services. The fat I see in Illinois are not in union and legislative pockets but in corporate pants and the generous salaries of the governor's appointed experts who will tell us how to provide more and pay less tax.

    Do the math Illinois.

    Marlene Koerner

    Herrin

    Voice of the Reader: Rauner's union-busting ruse : Opinion

    Sales of Confederate flags are soaring - Yahoo Finance#

     

    Alotta Signs of Sparks, Nev., typically sells about five Confederate flags per week. On Monday, however, 46 orders came in. Then South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley called for removing the stars and bars from her state's capitol grounds. The next morning, Alotta Signs logged 200 orders for Confederate flags, most of them through Amazon (AMZN). “We don’t even have the lowest price,” says Dave Pearson, owner and president of the company. “It’s nuts.”

     

    The threat of scarcity often leads to a run on products -- such as guns, with sales typically spiking when there's talk of tightening regulations after mass shootings. And that appears to be the case for the Confederate flag, now under assault in the aftermath of the murder of nine worshippers at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. Dylann Roof, the alleged murderer, posted several pictures of himself online with a Confederate flag and white supremacist symbols, stoking furor around a flag that has long been controversial. Many politicians who had defended the right of southern states to fly the flag changed their minds and said it should be relegated to museums. Walmart (WMT) and Sears (SHLD) said they would no longer sell Confederate flag merchandise.

    But other retailers are benefiting from the controversy. On Monday, before Haley announced her change in position on the flag (which still must be approved by the state assembly), Amazon listed two Confederate flags among the 60 bestselling items under “Outdoor Flags and Banners”: one at the No. 5 spot, and one at No. 43. The following morning, five of the top 20 bestsellers in the category were Confederate flags, including the No. 1 bestseller, a 3-by-5 foot polyester model made by Rhode Island Novelty and sold by a company called Anley. Among the top 60, 12 were versions of the Confederate flag.

    Sales of Confederate flags are soaring - Yahoo Finance#

    Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » What’s the harm? Ask Pat Quinn

    image

    What’s the harm? Ask Pat Quinn

    Monday, Jun 22, 2015

    * From a News-Gazette editorial about Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new TV ads

    What’s going on here? There is an old political maxim — if you can’t make them see the light, you can make them feel the heat.

    Rauner is trying to peel away enough of Madigan’s legislative caucus to persuade the all-powerful speaker to entertain a few of Rauner’s legislative proposals, including modifications to the state’s workers’-compensation law. […]

    So while Rauner and legislative leaders continue to talk, the TV ads will continue to play.

    It’s an odd way to do legislative business.

    But Illinois has become an odd state, one in which some of its leaders cling desperately to a status quo that has failed the people of this state. In that context, how much more harm can Rauner’s TV ads do?

    * Yes, this is about making MJM et al “feel the heat.” Agreed, even though this is a relatively light check into the boards. But how does that ad “peel away enough of Madigan’s legislative caucus to persuade the all-powerful speaker to entertain a few of Rauner’s legislative proposals”? I’m not quite understanding how the CN-G is arriving at that conclusion.

    And, by the way, they aren’t talking.

    Whenever somebody or some institution appear to be cheerleading for war, or at least cheerleading one side in a coming war, their claims and predictions should always be put under a microscope and compared to actual facts and history.

    * Let’s revisit my Crain’s Chicago Business column for this week

    In July 2013, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed lawmakers’ salaries and stipends out of the state budget. He “hit them in the wallet,” he said, to spur action on pension reform.

    Instead, all legislative progress suddenly and completely stopped on pension reform for a few months until a court finally ruled that the governor’s veto was unconstitutional. No way were legislators going to let Quinn push them around.

    I could very well be wrong, but if legislators wouldn’t cave to protect their own pocketbooks, what makes anyone think they’ll cry “Uncle!” over somebody else’s problems?

    Plus, legislators surely know, as they did with Quinn, that they can’t allow a precedent like this to be set: getting Rauner’s approval on the budget by giving in on his legislative agenda. If Democrats capitulate now, then the governor will just do it all over again when next year’s budget negotiations begin.

    And then there’s the impact of that Rauner ad about Madigan. […]

    Judging by history, including the Quinn paycheck ordeal, I get where the speaker is coming from, to some extent.

    As long as Rauner’s TV ads are on the air, Madigan probably is not going to move even a millimeter. Doing so only would invite more ads in the future.

    As noted previously, the governor’s ad isn’t devastating the process right now. As soon as the ad eventually comes down the two sides can probably resume talking. I just don’t see Madigan talking until then, however.

    Then again, it’s not like he was talking all that much before the ads went up.

    - Posted by Rich Miller

    Above is from:  Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » What’s the harm? Ask Pat Quinn

    Monday, June 22, 2015

    Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     

    There were three successive national flag designs that served as the official national flags of the Confederate States of America (the "Confederate States" or the "Confederacy") during its existence from 1861-65.

    Since the end of the American Civil War, private and official use of the Confederacy's flags, and of flags with derivative designs, has continued under philosophical, political, cultural, and racial controversy in the United States. These include flags displayed in states, cities/towns/counties, schools/colleges/universities, private organizations/associations, and by individuals.

    Today, the current state flag of Mississippi features the familiar Confederate battle flag in the canton, or upper left corner, the only current U.S. state flag to do so. Georgia's state flag is very similar to the first national flag of the Confederacy, the "Stars and Bars", even though its design has not incorporated the Confederate battle flag (X-shaped, blue Saltire with 13 white stars on a red field) in the canton since 2001.

    Contents

       [hide

    National flags[edit]

    First national flag: "The Stars and Bars" (1861–1863)[edit]

    A Confederate "Stars and Bars" flag, captured by soldiers of the Union Army at Columbia, South Carolina.

    Three versions of the flag of the Confederate States of America and the Confederate Battle Flag are shown on this printed poster from 1896. The "Stars and Bars" can be seen in the upper left. Standing at the center are Stonewall Jackson, P. G. T. Beauregard, and Robert E. Lee, surrounded by bust portraits of Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and various Confederate army officers, such as James Longstreet and A. P. Hill.

    The first official national flag of the Confederacy, often called the "Stars and Bars", was flown from March 4, 1861 to May 1, 1863. It was designed by German/Prussian artist Nicola Marschall in Marion, Alabama and resembles the Flag of the Austrian Empire (later Austria-Hungary, now the Republic of Austria), with which Marschall would have been familiar.[11][12] The "Stars and Bars" flag was adopted March 4, 1861, in the first temporary national capital of Montgomery, Alabama, and raised over the dome of that first Confederate capitol. Marschall also designed the Confederate army uniform.[13]

    One of the first acts of the Provisional Confederate Congress was to create the "Committee on the Flag and Seal", chaired by William Porcher Miles of South Carolina. The committee asked the public to submit thoughts and ideas on the topic and was, as historian John M. Coski puts it, "overwhelmed by requests not to abandon the 'old flag' of the United States." Miles had already designed a flag that would later become known as the Confederate "Battle Flag" (or the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by General Robert E. Lee), and he favored his flag over the "Stars and Bars" proposal. But given the popular support for a flag similar to the United States flag ("the Stars and Stripes" - originally established/designed June 1777 during the Revolutionary War), the "Stars and Bars" design was approved by the committee.[14] When war broke out, the "Stars and Bars" caused confusion on the battlefield at the Battle of First Bull Run/Battle of First Manassas (in northern Virginia) because of its similarity to the U.S. flag of the northern Union, which was still used by the United States Army (by now the Union Army), especially when it was hanging limp, down on the flagstaff. Also in the early years of the conflict, exacerbated by the fact that some Confederate units still wore dark blue coats or original state militia uniforms prior to the adoption of gray, butternut (tan or brown) uniforms with later generally anything else the lean units could scavenge as the war wore on.[15]

    However, the flag received criticism on ideological grounds for its aesthetic resemblance to the U.S. flag, which many Confederates disliked, seeing it as symbolizing of abolitionism and emancipation, which the Confederacy was officially in opposition to. As early as April 1861, a month after the flag's adoption, some were already criticizing the flag, calling it a "servile imitation" and a "detested parody" of the U.S. flag.[16] In January 1862, George William Bagby, writing for the Southern Literary Messenger, wrote that many Confederates disliked the flag. "Every body wants a new Confederate flag," Bagby wrote, also stating that "The present one is universally hated. It resembles the Yankee flag and that is enough to make it unutterably detestable." The editor of the Charleston Mercury expressed a similar view, stating that "It seems to be generally agreed that the 'Stars and Bars' will never do for us. They resemble too closely the dishonored 'Flag of Yankee Doodle' … we imagine that the "Battle Flag" will become the Southern Flag by popular acclaim." In addition, William T. Thompson, the editor of the Savannah-based Daily Morning News also objected to the flag, stating in April 1863 that he was opposed to it "on account of its resemblance to that of the abolition despotism against which we are fighting."[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In 1863, Thompson would go on to design the flag that would succeed the "Stars and Bars", the "Stainless Banner".[4][5][6][7]

    Over the course of the flag's use by the Confederacy, additional stars were added to the flag's canton, eventually bringing the total number of stars on the flag to thirteen. This reflected the Confederacy's claims of having admitted Kentucky and Missouri into the Confederacy. Although they were represented in the Confederate Congress, neither state was ever fully controlled or administered by the Confederacy. The first showing of the 13-star flag was outside the Ben Johnson House in Bardstown, Kentucky; the 13-star design was also in use as the Confederate navy's battle ensign.

    • First national flag with 7 stars
      (March 4, 1861 – May 21, 1861)

    • First national flag with 9 stars
      (May 21, 1861 – July 2, 1861)

    • First national flag with 11 stars
      (July 2, 1861 – November 28, 1861)

    • First national flag with 13 stars
      (November 28, 1861 – May 1, 1863[17])

    Second national flag: "The Stainless Banner" (1863–1865)[edit]

    During the solicitation for a second Confederate national flag, there were many different types of designs that were proposed, nearly all making use of the battle flag, which by 1863 had become well-known and popular among those living in the Confederacy. The new design was specified by the Confederate Congress to be a white field "with the union (now used as the battle flag) to be a square of two-thirds the width of the flag, having the ground red; thereupon a broad saltire of blue, bordered with white, and emblazoned with mullets or five-pointed stars, corresponding in number to that of the Confederate States."[18]

    The flag is also known as "the Stainless Banner" and was designed by William T. Thompson, a newspaper editor and writer based in Savannah, Georgia, with assistance from William Ross Postell, a Confederate blockade runner.[1][2][4][5][6][7] The nickname "stainless" referred to the pure white field which took up a large part of the flag's design, although W.T. Thompson, the flag's designer, referred to his design as "The White Man's Flag".[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In referring to the white field that comprised a large part of the flag's design elements, Thompson stated that its color symbolized the "supremacy of the white man":

    Second national flag
    (May 1, 1863 – March 4, 1865[17]), 2:1 ratio

    Second national flag, also used as the Confederate navy's ensign, 1.5:1 ratio

    As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

    William T. Thompson (April 23, 1863), Daily Morning News[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

    However, the official Confederate flag act of 1864 did not formally state what the white-colored field officially symbolized and thus, many Confederates at the time offered various interpretations. The Confederate Congress debated whether the white field should have a blue stripe and whether it should be bordered in red. As the flag's designer, W.T. Thompson opposed adding any such additional elements to the white field.[1][2][7][4][5][6] William Miles delivered a speech supporting the simple white design that was eventually approved. He argued that the battle flag must be used, but for a national flag it was necessary to emblazon it, but as simply as possible, with a plain white field.[19] In May 1863, when Thompson discovered that his design had been chosen by the Confederate Congress to become the Confederacy's next national flag, he was pleased. He praised his design as symbolizing the Confederacy's ideology and its cause of "a superior race", as well as for bearing little resemblance to the U.S. flag, which he called the "infamous banner of the Yankee vandals". Writing for Savannah's Daily Morning News, Thompson stated:

    As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals.

    William T. Thompson (May 4, 1863), Daily Morning News[1][2][4][5][6][7]

    The flags that were actually produced by the Richmond Clothing Depot used the 1.5:1 ratio adopted for the Confederate navy's battle ensign, rather than the official 2:1 ratio.[8]

    Initial reaction to the second national flag was favorable, but over time it became criticized for being "too white". The Columbia-based Daily South Carolinian observed that it was essentially a battle flag upon a flag of truce and might send a mixed message. Military officers also voiced complaints about the flag being too white, for various reasons, such as the danger of being mistaken for a flag of truce, especially on naval ships, and that it was too easily soiled.[10] Addressing these concerns, the flag's designer, W.T. Thompson, stated that the battle cross in the canton was sufficient enough to distinguish the flag from that of one of truce and that adding any additional elements would make the flag look too much like the U.S. one, which he referred to derisively as "the Yankee flag".[4][5][6][7] However, despite these complaints, the second national flag was applauded by some for its design invoking Confederate ideology. George William Bagby praised the flag, referring to the saltire in the flag's canton as the "Southern Cross", as did others at the time, and stating that it embodied "the destiny of the Southern master and his African slave", pointing them southward to "the banks of the Amazon", expressing the desire many Confederates held of expanding slavery southward into Latin America.[3]

    Third national flag: "The Blood-Stained Banner" (1865)[edit]

    Third national flag (after March 4, 1865)

    Third national flag as commonly manufactured, with a square canton

    The third national flag (also called "the Blood Stained Banner") was adopted March 4, 1865. The red vertical bar was proposed by Major Arthur L. Rogers, who argued that the pure white field of the Second National flag could be mistaken as a flag of truce: when hanging limp in no wind, the flag's Southern Cross canton could accidentally stay hidden, so the flag could mistakenly appear all white.

    Rogers lobbied successfully to have this alteration introduced in the Confederate Senate. He defended his redesign as having "as little as possible of the Yankee blue", and described it as symbolizing the primary origins of the people of the Confederacy, with the St. George's Cross of the English and British flags and the red bar from the flag of France.[10]

    The Flag Act of 1865 by the Confederate congress near the very end of the War, describes the flag in the following language:

    The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That the flag of the Confederate States shall be as follows: The width two-thirds of its length, with the union (now used as the battle flag) to be in width three-fifths of the width of the flag, and so proportioned as to leave the length of the field on the side of the union twice the width of the field below it; to have the ground red and a broad blue saltier thereon, bordered with white and emblazoned with mullets or five pointed stars, corresponding in number to that of the Confederate States; the field to be white, except the outer half from the union to be a red bar extending the width of the flag.

    —Flag Act of 1865, [9]

    Despite the passage of the Flag Act of 1865, very few of these third national flags were actually manufactured and put into use in the field, with many Confederates never seeing the flag. Moreover, the ones made by the Richmond Clothing Depot used the square canton of the second national flag rather than the slightly rectangular one that was specified by the law.[9]

    Other flags[edit]

    The "Bonnie Blue Flag"

    In addition to the national flags of the Confederacy, a wide variety of flags and banners were flown by Southerners during the War. Most famously, the "Bonnie Blue Flag" was used as an unofficial flag during the early months of 1861. It was flying above the Confederate batteries that first opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, in South Carolina beginning the Civil War. The "Van Dorn battle flag" was also carried by Confederate troops fighting in the Trans-Mississippi and Western theaters of war. In addition, many military units had their own regimental flags they would carry into battle. Other notable flags used are shown below.[20]

    Battle flag[edit]

    The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag was square, of various sizes for the different branches of the service: 52 inches (130 cm) square for the infantry, 38 inches (97 cm) for the artillery, and 32 inches (81 cm) for the cavalry. It was used in battle beginning in December 1861 until the fall of the Confederacy. The blue color on the saltire in the battle flag was navy blue, as opposed to the much lighter blue of the Naval Jack.

    The flag's stars represented the number of states in the Confederacy. The distance between the stars decreased as the number of states increased, reaching thirteen when the secessionist factions of Kentucky and Missouri joined in late 1861.[21]

    The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia

    At the First Battle of Manassas, near Manassas, Virginia, the similarity between the "Stars and Bars" and the "Stars and Stripes" caused confusion and military problems. Regiments carried flags to help commanders observe and assess battles in the warfare of the era. At a distance, the two national flags were hard to tell apart.[22] In addition, Confederate regiments carried many other flags, which added to the possibility of confusion. After the battle, General P. G. T. Beauregard wrote that he was "resolved then to have [our flag] changed if possible, or to adopt for my command a 'Battle flag', which would be Entirely different from any State or Federal flag."[15] He turned to his aide, who happened to be William Porcher Miles, the former chairman of the Confederate Congress's "Committee on the Flag and Seal". Miles described his rejected national flag design to Beauregard. Miles also told the Committee on the Flag and Seal about the general's complaints and request for the national flag to be changed. The committee rejected this idea by a four to one vote, after which Beauregard proposed the idea of having two flags. He described the idea in a letter to his commanding General Joseph E. Johnston: "I wrote to [Miles] that we should have "two" flags—a peace or parade flag, and a war flag to be used only on the field of battle—but congress having adjourned no action will be taken on the matter—How would it do us to address the War Dept. on the subject of Regimental or badge flags made of red with two blue bars crossing each other diagonally on which shall be introduced the stars, ... We would then on the field of battle know our friends from our Enemies."[15]

    South Carolina Sovereignty/Secession Flag with the decrescent moon and the palmetto in the left corner.

    The flag that Miles had favored when he was chairman of the "Committee on the Flag and Seal" eventually became the battle flag and, ultimately, the most popular flag of the Confederacy. According to historian John Coski, Miles' design was inspired by one of the many "secessionist flags" flown at the South Carolina secession convention in Charleston of December 1860. That flag was a blue St George's Cross (an upright or Latin cross) on a red field, with 15 white stars on the cross, representing the slaveholding states,[23] and, on the red field, palmetto and crescent symbols. Miles received a variety of feedback on this design, including a critique from Charles Moise, a self-described "Southerner of Jewish persuasion". Moise liked the design, but asked that "the symbol of a particular religion not be made the symbol of the nation". Taking this into account, Miles changed his flag, removing the palmetto and crescent, and substituting a heraldic saltire ("X") for the upright one. The number of stars was changed several times as well. He described these changes and his reasons for making them in early 1861. The diagonal cross was preferable, he wrote, because "it avoided the religious objection about the cross (from the Jews and many Protestant sects), because it did not stand out so conspicuously as if the cross had been placed upright thus". He also argued that the diagonal cross was "more Heraldric [sic] than Ecclesiastical, it being the 'saltire' of Heraldry, and significant of strength and progress".[24]

    According to Coski, the "Saint Andrew's Cross" (also used as the flag of Scotland), had no special place in Southern iconography at the time, and if Miles had not been eager to conciliate the Southern Jews his flag would have used the traditional Latin, "Saint George's Cross" (as used in the old ancient flag of England, a red cross on a white field). A colonel named James B. Walton submitted a battle flag design essentially identical to Miles' except with an upright Saint George's cross, but Beauregard chose the diagonal cross design.[25]

    Miles' flag, and all the flag designs up to that point, were rectangular ("oblong") in shape. General Johnston suggested making it square instead to conserve material. Johnston also specified the various sizes to be used by different types of military units. Generals Beauregard and Johnston and Quartermaster General Cabell approved the design of the 12-star Confederate Battle Flag at the Ratcliffe home, which served briefly as Beauregard's headquarters, near Fairfax Court House in September 1861. The 12th star represented Missouri. President Jefferson Davis arrived by train at Fairfax Station soon after and was shown the design for the new battle flag at the Ratcliffe House. Hetty Cary and her sister and cousin made prototypes. One such 12-star flag resides in the collection of Richmond's Museum of the Confederacy and the other is in Confederate Memorial Hall in New Orleans.

    On November 28, 1861, Confederate soldiers in General Robert E. Lee's newly reorganized Army of Northern Virginia received the new battle flags in ceremonies at Centreville and Manassas, Virginia, and carried them throughout the Civil War. Beauregard gave a speech encouraging the soldiers to treat this new flag with honor and that it must never be surrendered. Many soldiers wrote home about the ceremony and the impression the flag had upon them, the "fighting colors" boosting morale after the confusion at the Battle of First Manassas. From that point on, the battle flag only grew in its identification with the Confederacy and the South in general.[26] Later, a 13th star was added for Kentucky.

    The Army of Northern Virginia battle flag assumed a prominent place post-war when it was adopted as the copyrighted emblem of the United Confederate Veterans. Its continued use by the Southern Army's post-war veterans groups, the United Confederate Veterans (U.C.V.) and the later Sons of Confederate Veterans, (S.C.V.), and elements of the design by related similar female descendents organizations of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, (U.D.C.), led to the assumption that it was, as it has been termed, "the soldier's flag" or "the Confederate battle flag".

    The square "Battle Flag" is also properly known as "the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia". It was sometimes called "Beauregard's flag" or "the Virginia battle flag". A Virginia Department of Historic Resources marker declaring Fairfax, Virginia, as the birthplace of the Confederate battle flag was dedicated on April 12, 2008, near the intersection of Main and Oak Streets, in Fairfax, Virginia.[27][28][29]

    Naval jacks and ensigns[edit]

    The fledgling Confederate States Navy adopted and used several types of flags, banners, and pennants aboard all CSN ships: "jacks", "battle ensigns", and "small boat ensigns", as well as "commissioning pennants", "designating flags", and "signal flags".

    The First Confederate Navy Jack, in use from 1861 to 1863, consisted of a circle of seven to fifteen five-pointed white stars against a field of medium blue. It was flown forward aboard all Confederate warships while they were anchored in port. One seven-star jack still exists today (found aboard the captured ironclad CSS Atlanta) that is actually dark blue in color (see illustration below, left).

    The Second Confederate Navy Jack was a rectangular cousin of the Confederate Army's battle flag and was in use from 1863 until 1865. It existed in a variety of dimensions and sizes, despite the CSN's detailed naval regulations. The blue color of the diagonal saltire's Southern Cross was much lighter than the dark blue of the battle flag.

    • The First Confederate Navy Jack, 1861–1863

    • The Second Confederate Navy Jack, 1863–1865

    • The First Confederate Navy Ensign,1861–1863

    • The Second Confederate Navy Ensign, 1863–1865

    The first national flag, also known as the Stars and Bars (see above), served from 1861 to 1863 as the Confederate Navy's first battle ensign. It was generally made with an aspect ratio of 2:3, but a few very wide 1:2 ratio ensigns still survive today in museums and private collections. As the Confederacy grew, so did the numbers of white stars seen on the ensign's dark blue canton: seven-, nine-, eleven-, and thirteen-star groupings were typical. Even a few fourteen- and fifteen-starred ensigns were made to include states that were expected to secede but never completely joined the Confederacy.

    The second national flag was later adapted as a naval ensign, using a shorter 2:3 ratio than the 1:2 ratio adopted by the Confederate Congress for the national flag. This particular battle ensign was the only example taken around the world, finally becoming the last Confederate flag lowered in the Civil War; this happening aboard CSS Shenandoah in Liverpool, England on November 7, 1865.

    Confederate flag[edit]

    "Rebel flag" redirects here. For the red and black flag commonly used in video games and symbology for unnamed or generic rebel movements, see bisected flag.

    The rectangular battle flag of the Army of Tennessee

    Designed by William Porcher Miles, the chairman of the Flag and Seal committee, a now-popular variant of the Confederate flag was rejected as the national flag in 1861. It was instead adopted as a battle flag by the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee.[30] Despite never having historically represented the CSA as a country nor officially recognized as one of the national flags, it is commonly referred to as "the Confederate Flag" and has become a widely recognized symbol of the American south.[31] It is also known as the rebel flag, Dixie flag, and Southern cross and is often incorrectly referred to as the "Stars and Bars" (the actual "Stars and Bars" is the first national flag, which used an entirely different design).[32] The self-declared Confederate enclave of Town Line, New York, lacking a genuine Confederate flag, flew a version of this flag prior to its 1946 vote to ceremonially rejoin the Union.

    20th-century popularity[edit]

    During the first half of the 20th century, the Confederate flag enjoyed renewed popularity. During World War II some U.S. military units with Southern nicknames, or made up largely of Southerners, made the flag their unofficial emblem. The USS Columbia flew a Confederate Navy Ensign as a battle flag throughout combat in the South Pacific in World War II. This was done in honor of Columbia, the ship's namesake and the capital city of South Carolina, the first state to secede from the Union. Some soldiers carried Confederate flags into battle. After the Battle of Okinawa a Confederate flag was raised over Shuri Castle by a Marine from the self-styled "Rebel Company" (Company A of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines). It was visible for miles and was taken down after three days on the orders of General Simon B. Buckner, Jr. (son of Confederate general Simon Buckner, Sr.), who stated that it was inappropriate as "Americans from all over are involved in this battle". It was replaced with the regulation, 48-star flag of the United States.[33] By the end of World War II, the use of the Confederate flag in the military was rare.[34] The 1979–1985 American television series The Dukes of Hazzard, set in a fictional Georgia county, featured the General Lee stock car with a prominently displayed Confederate naval jack on its roof throughout the series' run. In the 1994 movie, Forrest Gump, a Confederate flag can be seen at a US Army camp in Vietnam.

    Controversy[edit]

    See also: Lost Cause of the Confederacy § 20th century usage, Allen Central High School § Mascot and flag scandals and Lexington, Virginia § Flag controversy

    The Confederate flag is a controversial symbol for many Americans today. A 2011 Pew Research poll revealed that 30% of Americans have a "negative reaction" when "they see the Confederate flag displayed."[35] According to the same poll, 9% of Americans have a positive reaction. A majority (58%) have no reaction. In a 2013 YouGov poll, a plurality (38%) of those polled disapproved of displaying the flag in public places.[36] In the same poll, a plurality (44%) of those asked viewed the flag as a symbol of racism, with 24% viewing it as exclusively racist and 20% viewing it as both racist and symbolic of pride in the region.[36]

    In Georgia, the Confederate battle flag was reintroduced as an element of the state flag in 1956, just two years after the Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education. It was considered by many to be a protest against school desegregation.[37] It was also raised at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) during protests against integration of schools.[38]

    Supporters of the flag's continued usage view it as a symbol of Southern ancestry and heritage as well as representing a distinct and independent cultural tradition of the Southern United States from the rest of the country. Some groups use the "southern cross" as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.[39] For other supporters, the flag represents only a past era of southern sovereignty.[40] Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Some rockabilly fans hold the battle flag as their emblem as well.[41]

    As a result of these varying perceptions, there have been a number of political controversies surrounding the use of the Confederate battle flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events, at Southern universities, and on public buildings. In their study of Confederate symbols in the contemporary Southern United States, the Southern political scientists James Michael Martinez, William Donald Richardson, and Ron McNinch-Su write:

    The battle flag was never adopted by the Confederate Congress, never flew over any state capitols during the Confederacy, and was never officially used by Confederate veterans' groups. The flag probably would have been relegated to Civil War museums if it had not been resurrected by the resurgent KKK and used by Southern Dixiecrats during the 1948 presidential election.[42]

    Southern historian Gordon Rhea further wrote in 2011 that:

    It is no accident that Confederate symbols have been the mainstay of white supremacist organizations, from the Ku Klux Klan to the skinheads. They did not appropriate the Confederate battle flag simply because it was pretty. They picked it because it was the flag of a nation dedicated to their ideals: 'that the negro is not equal to the white man'. The Confederate flag, we are told, represents heritage, not hate. But why should we celebrate a heritage grounded in hate, a heritage whose self-avowed reason for existence was the exploitation and debasement of a sizeable segment of its population?[43]

    Symbols of the Confederacy remain a contentious issue across the United States and their civic placement has been debated vigorously in many southern U.S. state legislatures since the 1990s, such as Georgia.[citation needed] Supporters have labeled attempts to display the flag as an exercise of free speech in response to bans in some schools and universities, but have not always been successful in court[44] when attempting to use this justification.

    Display at South Carolina's state capitol[edit]

    The South Carolina State House, site of the 2000 controversy

    On April 12, 2000, the South Carolina State Senate passed a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the State House dome by a majority vote of 36 to 7. (The flag had originally been placed on the dome in 1961.)[45] "...[T]he new bill specified that a more traditional version of the battle flag would be flown in front of the Capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers". The bill also passed the state's House of Representatives, but not without some difficulty. On May 18, 2000, after the bill was modified to ensure that the height of the flag's new pole would be 30 feet (9 m),[why?] it was passed by a majority of 66 to 43. Governor Jim Hodges signed the bill into law five days later after it passed the state Senate. On July 1, 2000 the flag was removed from atop the State House by two students (one white and one black) from The Citadel; a more historically accurate Confederate battle flag was then raised next to a monument on the front lawn of the capitol. Current state law prohibits the flag's removal from the State House grounds without additional legislation.

    In 2005, two Western Carolina University researchers found that 74% of African-Americans polled favored removing the flag from the South Carolina State House altogether.[46] The NAACP and other civil rights groups have attacked the flag's continued presence at the state capitol. The NAACP maintains an official economic boycott of South Carolina, citing its continued display of the battle flag on its State House grounds, despite an initial agreement to call off the boycott after it was removed from the State House dome.[citation needed]

    The National Collegiate Athletic Association has prevented South Carolina from hosting any championship sporting events in which the sites are determined in advance.[47] This NCAA ban on post-season championships in South Carolina has been strictly enforced, with the exception of HBCU Benedict College. In both 2007 and 2009, the school hosted the post-season Pioneer Bowl game, in violation of the NCAA ban, though no action was taken.[48] On April 14, 2007, Steve Spurrier, coach of the University of South Carolina football team, made an acceptance speech for a community service award in which he referred to the flag on the State House grounds as "that damn flag". This statement was also inspired by the actions of a local fraternity on that same day, whose members created controversy as they waved the battle flag while being videotaped for SportsCenter.[49] On July 6, 2009, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced a decision to move three future baseball tournaments out of South Carolina citing miscommunications with the NAACP concerning the display of the Confederate flag in the state.[50]

    Following the Charleston church shooting in 2015, many commentators questioned the continued display of the flag at the memorial on the state house grounds.[51][52][53][54][55]

    Use in state flags[edit]
    Alabama and Florida[edit]

    Main articles: Flag of Alabama and Flag of Florida

    Flag of Alabama

    It has been hypothesized that the crimson saltire of the flag of Alabama was designed to resemble the blue saltire of the Confederate Battle Flag. The legislation that created the state flag did not specify if the flag was going to be square or rectangular.[56] The authors of a 1917 article in National Geographic expressed their opinion that because the Alabama flag was based on the Battle Flag, it should be square.[57] In 1987, the office of Alabama Attorney General Don Siegelman issued an opinion in which the Battle Flag derivation is repeated, but concluded that the proper shape is rectangular, as it had been depicted numerous times in official publications and reproductions.[58]

    However, the saltire design of the Alabama state flag also bears resemblance to several other flags. It is identical to the flag of Saint Patrick, incorporated into the Union Flag of the United Kingdom to represent the union of the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. Except for the Great Seal in the center, it is almost identical to the Flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy flag.

    Another slim possibility is in the flag of Co. F 7th Regiment Alabama Cavalry. The regiment was the only Alabama regiment in Rucker's Brigade commanded by Col. Edmund Rucker of Tennessee, later Alabama, who became a prominent Montgomery businessman after the war. The flag of the brigade used a white background with a red saltire which did not always extend to the corners and charged with dark colored stars upon the saltire. The flag of Co. F, 7th Alabama Cavalry is currently held by the Alabama Department of Archives and History as part of its Alabama Civil War Period Flag Collection.[59] But, the flag carried by Co. F 7th Alabama was not an Alabama Flag, it was the flag made for Rucker's Brigade a month before the 7th joined his brigade; the 7th was color party only after September 24, 1864. A bunting flag that exists, in the white and red configuration with 13 blue stars, is not believed to be Alabama associated, but tied to Rucker's Brigade.

    Georgia[edit]

    Main article: Flag of Georgia (U.S. state)

    The current state flag of Georgia, adopted in 2003. It is based on the Confederacy's first national flag, the "Stars and Bars".

    In 1956 the Georgian state flag was redesigned to incorporate the Confederate battle flag. Following protests over this aspect of the design in the 1990s by the NAACP, (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and other groups, efforts began in the Georgia General Assembly to remove the battle flag from the state flag's design. These efforts succeeded in January 2001 when Georgia Governor Roy Barnes pushed through a design that, though continuing to depict the Battle Flag, greatly reduced its prominence. This move deeply angered a large segment of Georgia's electorate, contributing to Barnes' defeat in the subsequent gubernatorial election in November 2002.

    The following year, amidst dwindling demands for the return of the 1956 design ("Battle Flag" version) and lesser opposing demands for the continued use of the new "Barnes'" design, the Georgia General Assembly redesigned the flag yet again; it adopted a "compromise" design using the 13-star First National Flag of the Confederacy (the "Stars and Bars"), combined with a simplified version of Georgia's state seal placed within the circle of 13 stars on the flag's canton.

    Recent flags of Georgia

    Mississippi[edit]

    Main article: Flag of Mississippi

    Flag of Mississippi

    The Confederate battle flag became a part of the flag of Mississippi in 1894. In 1906 the flag statutes were omitted by error from the new legal code of the state, leaving Mississippi without an official flag. The omission was not discovered until 1993, when a lawsuit filed by the NAACP regarding the flag was being reviewed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. In 2000 Governor Ronnie Musgrove issued an executive order making the flag official, which it did in February 2001. After continued controversy, the decision was turned over to citizens of the state, who, on April 17, 2001, voted 2:1 to keep the Confederate Battle Flag a part of the current state flag.[60]

    State seals[edit]

    See also: Six flags over Texas

    The first Confederate flag, along with five other flags appears on the reverse of the Seal of Texas, it is also flown along with five other flags in Austin. Both are meant to describe the six countries that had sovereignty over Texas.

    The Alabamian coat of arms features the Confederate battle flag's saltire in its design.

    Use on vehicular license plates[edit]

    In Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia vehicle owners can request a state-issued license plate featuring the Sons of Confederate Veterans logo, which incorporates the square Confederate battle flag.[61]

    In 1998, a North Carolina appellate court upheld the issuance of such license plates in the case Sons of Confederate v. DMV, noting: "We are aware of the sensitivity of many of our citizens to the display of the Confederate flag. Whether the display of the Confederate flag on state-issued license plates represents sound public policy is not an issue presented to this Court in this case. That is an issue for our General Assembly."[62]

    In 2015, the dispute over Texas vanity plates that would have borne the logo ended up before the United States Supreme Court, in a case pitting nationally famous free-speech advocates against those who view the battle flag as a symbol of hatred.[63] The United States Supreme Court ruled that license plates are governmental speech, and the government may decide what to have printed on the license plates.[64] A state may choose not to have a certain message on vanity license plates that it issues.[64]

    Legal recognition and protection[edit]

    In some U.S. states the Confederate flag is given the same protection from burning and desecration as the U.S. flag. It is protected from being publicly mutilated, defiled, or otherwise cast in contempt by the laws of five U.S. states: Florida,[65] Georgia,[66] Louisiana,[67] Mississippi,[68] and South Carolina.[69] However, laws banning the desecration of any flag, even if technically remaining in effect, were ruled unconstitutional in 1989 by the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, and are not enforceable.[70]

    By contrast, in California, legislation enacted in 2014 prohibits the Confederate flag from being sold or displayed by government agencies, except for historical or educational purposes.[71][72]

    UDC salute[edit]

    A "salute" to the Confederate flag was written by Mrs. James Henry Parker of New York:

    I salute the Confederate Flag with affection, reverence and undying remembrance.

    It was officially adopted in 1933 by the UDC, the United Daughters of the Confederacy. This salute is still in use today by the organization and its auxiliary, the Children of the Confederacy[73] and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.[74][75][76]

    According to the 1959 UDC handbook, this salute was to be given by the speaker while giving the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag; the Pledge was to be given first, and the speaker was directed to drop their right arm to their side before giving the salute.[77] The current UDC flag code states that the speaker is to stand at attention and place their ungloved right hand over their heart. The order of precedence for flag salutes and pledges is: Salute to the Christian flag (if used), the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, the Salute to the State Flag and then the Salute to the Confederate Flag. The speaker is to drop their right hand to their side in between each salute or pledge.[78]

    See also[edit]

    Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia