Posted on 01/17/2006 9:16:08 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
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.
WVLT Volunteer TV's Blount County Bureau Chief Stephen McLamb has the latest.
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.
It's insightful statements like this that keep me coming back to FR.
There is no identity between the Slaver flag and the US flag. It was under the US flag that hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves gathered for freedom and protection from those waving the Slaver flag.
Nor are the slave owners of 1776 remotely like those of 1861 as I explained earlier. Those in 1776 inherited the problem which they recognized as a contradiction with their struggle for freedom they fully expected the institution to wither away. Those of 1861 not only did not consider it a problem (except to Yankees) but considered it a positive good to be expanded whenever possible.
If you cannot see the difference between those who were trying to destroy the Union and those who were trying to create the Union then you are entirely consistent with the modern day Defenders of Slaverocracy who ignore facts to ennoble a despicable cause. They have no more regard for the truth than the RATS of today.
Your regard for the "truth" seems to be somewhat in need of improvement as well. If you look at Revolutionary history close enough, you'll quickly find that those who went to war with Britain were in no way interested in creating a "Union," but were rather fighting for their own states' respective right for self-governance. They won that right in the form of recognition of their 12 colonies as independent nations in the Treaty of Paris. Afterwards, the notion of a centralized Federal government terrified them, as can be evidenced by the debates surrounding the adoption of the Constitution of 1789. Have you bothered reading through the history of these debates? They are very fascinating, indeed.
Question: If the Federal government were acquiring vast new lands for Americans to settle on, and it paid for the lands in moneys collected from YOUR taxes, but then said that because you own arbitrary luxury items, you are FORBIDDEN from moving into that new territory (even though you'd like to expand beyond the land you live on now, and there's good opportunity in the new territory), would that irritate you?
####There is no identity between the Slaver flag and the US flag. It was under the US flag that hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves gathered for freedom and protection from those waving the Slaver flag.####
And the U.S. Flag flew over the institution of slavery for almost a century. I'm not downing the U.S., I'm just trying to show you the consequences of declaring the Confederate Flag to be unmitigated evil for flying over the institution of slavery. The consequences are the eventual banning of the U.S. Flag, which is the left's long range goal.
####Nor are the slave owners of 1776 remotely like those of 1861 as I explained earlier. Those in 1776 inherited the problem which they recognized as a contradiction with their struggle for freedom they fully expected the institution to wither away. Those of 1861 not only did not consider it a problem (except to Yankees) but considered it a positive good to be expanded whenever possible.####
Try explaining that there were good slave owners and bad slave owners to the left when they demand (as they already have) that Thomas Jefferson's name be removed from a school. You're playing right into the left's hands just as surely as the wimp senators did that day when Moseley-Braun threw her tantrum.
####If you cannot see the difference between those who were trying to destroy the Union and those who were trying to create the Union then you are entirely consistent with the modern day Defenders of Slaverocracy who ignore facts to ennoble a despicable cause. They have no more regard for the truth than the RATS of today.####
Were the colonists trying to "destroy England" when they demanded their independence? If conservative Poland wants to get out of the EU, will you endorse the use of force by the other countries to keep them from leaving? Should conservatives try to stop Vermont from leaving if they try to do so?
LOL, went right over their head
From Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech," consider:
"This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border, in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. [Applause.]
It seems to me that he outlines many of the Confederate States' true motivations early on in the speech, and that seems to line up fairly well with my understanding of the events that led to the secession. In fact, I think if you take a look at the entire speech, you'll find that it is very similar to the speeches which were made by the Revolutionaries of '76. While he does declare that he hopes (and keep in mind that this speech takes place in mid 1861) that the CSA becomes the dominant force on the Continent, he is presenting the CSA as being a continuation of the founding principles of our nation, and slavery factors into very little of the entire speech.
I will review the other citations you provided as I am able. Thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion!
The silence from the other flag promoters is appallingly deafening. There are a lot more photos where those came from.
It's sickening. Talk about a cult brutally attempting to destroy little children. All we can do is pray that little boy and all others are delivered from such vicious, evil surroundings.
We are fighting against this type of blind hate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and real soon where it all began (thanks to Carter) in Iran & Syria. I'll take bets - any takers in the neo-confederate camp? Or, maybe their too busy stuck in a 150 year cycle of defeat & rejection, in relation to fighting the real enemy of mankind?
Hear hear!
The crux of this matter is this: Is the Declaration of Independence still applicable to the modern world? Or have we given up the ability to govern ourselves in exchange for pork-barrel projects and graft?
I dunno about you guys, but I absolutely do NOT appreciate paying nearly 40% of my income to the General Government, in addition to what I pay to my beloved State. To think that our founders went to war with Britain over a measly 13% tax is always awe-inspiring.
States which did not allow slavery were under the US flag. There were no states which did not allow slavery under the CSA flag. And there is no fear that the US flag will be banned because the Confederate flag can be. Just another silly DS statement.
I am not playing into the Left's hands because I do not support the symbol of Treason and slavery. Just another silly DS argument.
There was no constitutional tie to England as has been explained but which you refuse to acknowledge. Declaring war upon the US was not the same as declaring independence from an Empire wherein we had no representation. RATS controlled the South and would have controlled Congress and the Courts had the Slavers not pulled out their front men from Washington. These DS arguments are pathetically illogical and based upon nothing historical.
Of course, Vermont has no right to secede unless a constitutional amendment allows secession. It has no more right to do that than South Carolina did or New England talked about doing. Secession is legally impossible under the Constitution unless it is changed.
According to today's pitiful slavery apologists, hiding behind the skirt of "heritage" they are unable to respond to facts, when cornered.
They indoctrinated you well in public school.
You know why I didn't comment on it? Because I don't lower myself to "feelings" and "emotions." It did not bring a tear to my eye. I did not feel sad in the least in seeing it. Some people are idiots - Whether on this side of the planet or the other. There is no amount of emoting that will fix that, and I refuse to spend any effort trying.
You're welcome to spin your wheels doing so, if it makes you "feel" better about yourself.
Yes there was: The colonies established in the United States were created by, and were ruled under the jurisdiction of the Crown. There is a LEGAL CHARTER establishing EACH AND EVERY COLONY, starting with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and continuing until the last one, Georgia, was founded. (There were an additional 12 or so colonies in Canada and the Carribean who refused to participate in our rebellion.)
WE WERE COMMITTING TREASON AGAINST THE CROWN, WHICH WAS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
How is it possible that someone who has such a firm grasp on history as yourself cannot understand that?
As early as 1770 the colonists considered themselves "Americans" so your statement is incorrect. Apparently you have forgotten E Pluribus Unum and the flag with the chopped up snake. They clearly were fighting for a Union and formed one almost immediately. What was unclear was exactly what KIND of Union there was going to be and the retention of excessive state power almost lost the war and was rejected by the most brilliant of our Founders by the adoption of the Constitution. THAT is the truth. As well as the fact that the States were created by the Union. Colonies transformed themselves into states at the behest of the Continental Congress.
I have read the debates about the Constitution and the absolute lunacy of those opposed to it is indeed fascinating. Even more fascinating is the brilliance of those attempting to strengthen and protect our nation such as Hamilton, Washington, and Madison.
Anyone considering human to be their "items" will not find me protecting that fantasy. If our claims in the Declaration are true then those considering people to be property are hypocrits of the highest order.
Apparently some need to know.
Not to be rude, but have you actually contributed a single fact into this discussion as of yet?
Not much room to cast aspersions there, friend.
Ah, then please accept my most humble apologies. Your reply was posted to me, so I didn't know quite how to respond. Hope I wasn't too inconsiderate! :)
The Constitution grew out of the Articles which explicitly referred to the Union as perpetual. That Union was not changed merely because the form of government for it changed. Consult Madison's letter to Hamilton during the NY state ratification wherein he explained that the Union was precisely to be forever and that ratifying the Constitution meant a state could not withdraw unilaterally later on. Since he is considered the "father of the Constitution" his word is definitive.
The Articles did not declare themselves to be perpetual but the UNION. Governments can change forms without affecting the perpetual nature of the Union. You actually thought that was a good point?
The Declaration's proclamation of the right to change the form of government has not changed. However it was speaking of people governed by a government not of their own choosing (Great Britain colonial administration) NOT a government created by the PEOPLE themselves. You really thought that was a good point? Lol.
Our small nations were combining themselves in a mutual agreement which would more securely protect their rights against their former sovereign than would them being independent.
And I suggest you stop quoting the Declaration, as (a) it was a specific list of grievances against a King and Parliament who refused to allow us to mind our own affairs, and (b) it explicitly declared the RIGHT of the people to throw off an oppressive government, and (c) That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States (NOT one big "union").
Your moral superiority is clearly too much for someone of my meager stature to match.
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.