Confederate Flag Fight Rises Again in High School

Maryville, Blount County (WVLT) - The issue involving the confederate flag is coming back in Blount County after students at a local high school were ordered to cover up their shirts on Friday with the confederate flag on it.

More than 150 students at William Blount High School have signed a petition seeking support for the right to wear confederate symbols on shirts and other clothing items.

But students who wore the emblem on Friday say they were threatened with suspension if they didn't cover up.

Some students say they support the right to express their confederate heritage that the school has taken away.

Many students came to school on Friday wearing a confederate symbol but say school officials then threatened them.

"If we didn't they said that they were going to suspend us, but my friend Bruce, they threatened my friend Bruce that if he didn't turn his shirt inside out, they were going to take him to juvenile," says Derek Barr, who started the flag petition.

Barr says he hopes to seek more signatures for his petition but says he's concerned about retaliation from school officials.

Attempts to contact Principal Steve Lafon or Superintendent Alvin Hord were unsuccessful.

The policy may be facing legal action, local Sons of Confederates Camp Commander Ron Jones says they will be assisting the students should a suit be filed against the school system.

At least the leaders of the RAT Rebellion clearly stated that it was over slavery. Their modern-day rationalizers who frequent these idiotic threads pretend that slavery had NOTHING to do with it hoping that the gullible will not recognize that the only "right" being fought for was the right to the Whip and the Lash.

#1, if y'all insist on repeating the claim that the leaders of the Confederate States stated it was all about slavery, please back it up with a quote or two. These threads show up so frequently, you could probably keep said quotes handy in your FR profile for quick reference.

#2, have you ever even bothered to read Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," or at the least, William Cooper's "Jefferson Davis, American"? The former is quite a difficult read, as Mr. Davis tends to be something of a dry personality, but he argues as passionately and as eloquently towards liberty as the Founding Fathers who came before him, in those volumes. The latter is a very interesting read, and sheds quite a bit of light on why he became the man he was.

#3, If the entire war was about slaves, of which less than 20% of Southerners owned AT ALL, why was it, then, that when the males in a well-to-do family (who, by inference, DID own slaves) went off to war, they left and entrusted their families (women and children) entirely in the care of their slaves? I would argue that, to most typical Southerners of the period, slaves were considered as much a part of their family as their own children were. Were there abuses? Of course. The same could be said with respect to children, even in a more "enlightened" age as today. (Remember: The one thing that is constant through ALL of the centuries is SIN!)

#4, Once again, if the entire war regarded slavery, why was there rioting in New York City when Lincoln requested more troops from the area; specifically, riots against his suggestion that the slaves were to be freed?

Speaking of New York City, I'd like to add, for the record, that a published account of a European's travels through the United States in the 1880's (which, sadly, I don't recall the name of), declared that "Everywhere one looks in New York City, all of the most fashionable people - anyone who is anyone at all - declares themselves to be Republican."

With that in mind, I ask you: Has New York City changed its socialist bent from the 1870's to today?

I would argue that it has most certainly not, but that instead, the modern institutions that we now know as the "Republican Party" and the "Democratic Party" have completely switched places in the mid 20th century - i.e., the Democrats of today align their beliefs more closely with the Republicans of yesteryear, and vice versa.

Thoughts? I'm always open to debate - As far as I'm concerned, the only "side" I am on in this debate is "Jim Robinson's": Namely, I'm a FReeper, and I see you as one, too. On the virtues of this great Forum, I think we both will continue to agree.

Warmest regards,
~dt~ (Just an average joe.)

Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Most of the Confederate soldiers never owned a slave. They were fighting to defend the principle of state sovereignty. Slavery was the catalyst issue, no doubt, but that means it was the issue that alerted the south about many Yankees' intents to limit state sovereignty.

And surely they did, because nearly every liberal power grab since then has been based on the northern victory. Corner a liberal and ask him why the federal government, and not the states or localities, should be the ones deciding whether or not to permit abortion or to put a Nativity Scene in a town square. Tell the liberal that the Founding Fathers intended such issues to be left to the local folks. The liberal will say, "Ah, but the Union victory in the Civil War reversed that. It established the federal government as sovereign. The 14th Amendment places states under federal control."

So the result today is that we may even have gay "marriage" imposed on us because the federal courts use one of the Reconstruction Amendments to seize control of the issue. Now I'll grant you that such an interpretation goes far beyond what the Civil War era Radical Republicans intended, but there can be no doubt that their intent was to undo the general Federalist layout and replace it with a system of overall federal supremacy.

This is the irony for those such as yourself who call us "traitors". The south merely wanted to secede, not overthrow the type of government our Founders gave us. Yet partially by intent and partially by irresponsibility (the unforgivable vagueness of the 14th Amendment) the Radical Republican essentially staged a coup over the Founding Fathers.

If we're such traitors down here in Dixie, why haven't we rebelled against fighting for the United States in all the wars since? As much as any region, and more than the hardcore Unionist strongholds in the upper northeast, Dixie has provided volunteers and support for our fighting men in every war since.

Why would traitors behave in such a way? Because we aren't, and weren't, traitors. We tried to secede because we feared that the government our Founders gave us was going to be eroded, not because we hated that government. And eroded it was. And the anti-American, anti-war sentiment we see today is appropriately concentrated not in Dixie, but in those areas most hostile to the Rebel Flag.

There was no state "sovereignty" threatened in 1861 merely the recognition by the Slavers that their beloved institution was not going to be allowed to expand. (Jefferson had advocated that as early as 1783 in the Northwest Ordinance.) This myth is easily shown to be just that. The fact that they were able to propagandize the ignorant into fighting for them (THEY were exempt from the CSA draft) does not make the mythology anything else.

Had the Slavers not forced the war there would have been no 14th amendment. Had they not taken to attacking and killing Freedmen standing up for their political rights there would have been no need for the 14th. The Federal government was sovereign BEFORE the war as Andy Jackson made clear to the South Carolina Nullifiers in the 1830s. He threatened to hang them.

You are also not accurate if you believe federalism was changed by the war since we had a fully federal system before it and afterwards the government shrank back to almost the same size it was prior to the RAT Rebellion.

The only Traitors I call by that name are those who agitated to destroy the Union and took up arms against it so stop pretending I am referring to current Southerners. I am assuming that you have not taken up arms. If so then I will expand the coverage of the term.

You do not understand the Constitution if you believe secession was in anyway legal. No state could or can legally take ANY action which affects other states or the nation as a whole. Our Union cannot be changed unilaterally.

Southern militaristic traditions are based upon the poverty of the region. As wealth grows so does the inclination to stay out of the military. Military service has always been considered an honorable profession.

There was NO "erosion" from the Founders ideals in 1861 and many of the negative changes since then were forced by the insane RAT Rebellion of 1861-5 and the attacks on blacks afterwards. We can thank the Slavers' for the increased power of the fedgov and the increased poverty of the South in the century which followed their folly.

Southern political and economic leadership brought ruin to the South. One must look deep into history to find one more at odds with progress and reality maybe Czarist Russia provides the closest comparable example of such reactionary blindness. Buffoons glore made up the ruling class of the South. Military leaders were an exception to this rule.

You do not understand the Constitution if you believe secession was in anyway legal. No state could or can legally take ANY action which affects other states or the nation as a whole. Our Union cannot be changed unilaterally.

Just as a hint: The Constitution makes no claim of permanence, in ANY of its provisions. It merely presents itself as a government consisting of the powers delegated to it by the States, to be confined and defined by the terms contained within itself.

The Articles of Confederation, which preceded it, did refer to itself as being everlasting, calling itself more formally, the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" (emphasis mine).

This leads me to question: If the Articles of Confederation, which declared itself to be perpetual, was subjugated by the Constitution of 1787, and therefore proved itself to be non-perpetual, why is it that the antecedent Constitution, which makes NO claim of its own permanence, is considered to be irreversible?

(To go down a similar line as other posters, did the American Colonies threaten to "destroy" the English empire when they seceded from the protection of the Commonwealth of Great Britain? I propose that the answer to that was a clear and profound "No," in that the colonists, in all of their writing, proved very clearly that they merely wished the right to govern themselves. How is the South's second war for independence any different?)

Also, and forgive me for interjecting this at the last moment, are you arguing that the Declaration of Independence, which claimed that Men everywhere have the God-given right to re-organize their governments in the way they best see fit, was declared NULL AND VOID by the Northern victory in 1865? (I would propose that world history since then proves that it's null and void, but that's not necessarily a topic pertinent to this discussion.)

This smells like the dirty work of the "League of the South" again. They must want the pupils to be brainwashed by DeLorenzo's view of distorted history.

If it just started and ended with people's love of history and their relatives' part in it, this type of thing would not be objectionable. But I fear that a lot of times this heritage stuff just serves as breaking ground for the odious doctrine of groups like the LOS. The LOS website makes clear they're not a heritage group but on the other hand they sure don't seem to mind working their way into the heritage organizations.

It seems that the old weakness of many Southern people is being repeated. There's always been some Southerners who'll swallow any dishonesty and accept any self-inflicted wound as long it's packaged as being pro-Dixie and anti-Yankee.

Talk about your revisionist nonsense. Would you care to name the Hollywood film(s) that inspired the white supremists to start carrying the CBF, or did the everclear erase that memory altogether?

Ok, perhaps I am waxing eloquent in declaring that Hollywood inspired it. I would suggest that it has contributed to it: Movies such as "Storm Warning" (1951), through "Mississippi Burning" (1988) rely on an archetypical Klansman as being the root of all of the evils plaguing the world. My point in saying what I did is that the connection between the Battle Flag and the Klan is something that is a result of modern events, not something that's connected to history, nor to any reality in the South.

(I would still love to see any photos that ANY of you can find that shows the Klan hoisting the Southern Cross, that dates before 1960. I have had very poor luck in locating such an image, myself.)

As I said to another poster: The Klan at its height had its absolute highest membership in Illinois, hardly the bastion of the South.

Rather than leaning on crutches, strawmen, and frightening caricatures to support one's view of the world, wouldn't it be better to actually study history, warts and all? Obviously, the Left wants to keep the fear of the Klan (and, by inference, the ENTIRE South) in the hearts of their subjects - but that doesn't mean that we, on the Right, have to fall for their sleight-of-hand.

Movies such as "Storm Warning" (1951), through "Mississippi Burning" (1988) rely on an archetypical Klansman as being the root of all of the evils plaguing the world.

Plot Summary for Storm Warning (1951)...

"Ginger Rogers, a traveling dress model, stops in a southern town to see her sister (Doris Day) who has married a Ku Klux Klansman (Steve Cochran). Rogers sees the KKK commit a murder and helps District Attorney Ronald Reagan in bringing the criminals to justice."

...so I guess Ginger, Doris, and Ronald are to blame huh? [lol]

Rather than leaning on crutches, strawmen, and frightening caricatures to support one's view of the world, wouldn't it be better to actually study history, warts and all?

Good idea. Let's start with the ridiculous notion that liberal Hollywood somehow inspired American white supremacists to use the CBF as a symbol, and place that burden where it correctly belongs. How about that?

Keep it up. You'll eventually learn that this war against Confederate symbols was launched by the cultural left as a wedge issue against America itself. Thus we see anti-U.S. military senator Turban Durbin fighting to ban the flag from a Confederate cemetary in Illinois.

This war against Dixie symbols is of recent vintage. Nobody took particular offense at Rebel Flags until the past decade or so. Even the "Dukes of Hazzard" TV series on a liberal network (CBS) displayed the flag each week with no one getting their panties in a twist about it. Liberal didn't see any mileage in using it as an issue.

That all changed about a decade ago when leftist senator Carol Moseley-Braun threw a hissy fit on the Senate floor. The Daughters of the Confederacy, a charity group composed of female descendants of Confederate soldiers, applied for their congressional trademark to be renewed, as it had been routinely and unanimously for about a century or more. Their trademark includes the Rebel flag. Moseley-Braun began screaming that she was insulted by the flag. She acted as if she was so horrified that she was about to faint. Senator Feinstein ran and held her, lest she fall on the floor in her hysteria. Everyone had assumed the trademark would be renewed unanimously, but with Moseley-Braun braying and playing the race card, nearly every Democrat and about half the Republicans panicked and joined her in expressing their "horror" at the Rebel symbol, a symbol of hate, slavery, bigotry, evil....you name it. The Senate voted to reject the trademark renewal by a wide margin, with only the strongest conservatives supporting renewal.

That night on the network news, "dramatic" footage was aired of Moseley-Braun's tirade, with Feinstein having to help keep her from "fainting". When everyone saw how quickly half the GOP folded, the left licked their chops. They had a new issue to force Republicans into quaking cowardice.

What's more, it was an issue that could be used against America itself. Everything that can be said about Confederate flags and symbols can be said about the American flag and symbols. Everything that can be said about the "evil slaver" Confederates can be said about many of our Founding Fathers.

So it's quite simple. Purge Confederate symbols from our nation and culture, and then later use the very same reasoning and set precedent for a war against the American Flag and Founding Fathers, and the Bill of Rights ("written by slave owners"). If you can't see that coming, you're blind.

Don't be rediculous, I'm not inferring any such thing. As I said earlier, my point wasn't so much that "liberal Hollywood somehow inspired American white supremacists to use the CBF as a symbol," as much as liberal folklore in the Radical 1960's did. (Or, more accurately, cemented that image in the public's mind.) Before that time, the CBF was never, to my knowledge, hoisted by ANY white supremacist group.

So, do you have anything to add to this conversation? Or are you merely being antagonistic?

If you want to lower yourself to the lowest common denominator ("Feelings"), feel free to. I'll continue to do my best to study history as honestly as I can. Rewriting history to suit one's own tastes is never beneficial, and tends to allow for lessons learned in the past to be forgotten. I don't claim the South to be perfect in any sense of the word, but I also refuse to view the North as a flawless champion of civil liberties, either.

#1, if y'all insist on repeating the claim that the leaders of the Confederate States stated it was all about slavery, please back it up with a quote or two.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. " "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Alexander Stephens, CSA VP, "Cornerstone Speech"

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861 A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union.

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
Georgia Declaration of Causes of Secession

There's plenty more.

You're conveniently conflating two different ideas--that there was rioting because of the draft (true) and that it was also because of the Emancipation Proclamation issued six months earlier. But the easier answer is that New York City, then as now, was in the hands of a corrupt Democratic machine that supports the enemies of the United States and has the ability to call out mobs when it wants to.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.