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.

Well, we're just running around in circles here. I'm not going to be ashamed of my heritage because the left decided about a decade ago that I should be. Nor am I going to be ashamed of it because a group of conservatives (PC-Cons) have split off to side with the left on this issue.

I hope we're both still here when the demand arises (as it will) to change the name of Washington, DC to something more PC, or when more and more public schools begin dropping the names of Jefferson and Madison, or when some demagogue senator has a staged nervous breakdown over the "evils" of the American Flag. You know, the flag that flew over slavery, the stealing of the land from the Indians, and the robbery of the southwest from Mexico.

It's coming. I'm sure of that. What I'm not sure of is how the PC-Cons will come down on these issues when they arise. I suspect they'll fold as they always do, and that will truly be the end of America.

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.

Is it? After all, the Constitutional Convention committed treason against the Confederation by substituting the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of 1787, did it not? After all, they were only authorized to, and I quote, "make such amendments as are necessary" to ensure the well-being of, well, you know how the rest goes.

I believe you'll find that a government can become oppressive, whether it is "instituted by the people" or not. Just look at the way the Government is operating today if you doubt that.

Besides, the Declaration of Independence does NOT, as you say, speak of a people governed by a government not of their own choosing - It speaks of ANY government which has become oppressive.

But I'm sure a renowned scholar such as yourself would've figured that out already.

Because Great Britain declared itself to own the colonies meant the colonists a hundred years later were bound by that claim? I don't think so, those charters were not something agreed upon by the Crown and the Colonists but were unilaterally created by the Crown. There is a huge difference between that an a deliberate act of the People in creating and adopting a Constitution. There was no choice for the colonists; there was for the American people. When Britain defeated the Netherlands did the people in New Amsterdam have any choice in becoming subjects of the King of England?

I never claimed that the Crown would not consider the Founders treasonous. But that there is a huge difference between those declaring themselves free from an empire wherein they had NO representation and from a government instituted by the free choice of the People.

Had the US government declared that formerly independent slave states were part of the Union without consultation of the people living in them then I would not argue that a rebellion was illegal.

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.

Ok, then explain how liberal folklore in the radical 1960's inspired American white supremists to use the CBF as a symbol. While yer at it you can explain what the hell that term even means, and why it proved to be so persuavsive with the KKK.

Or you can just admit you don't know jack about the reasons the klan started using the CBF and leave it at that. Your choice.

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.

Well, given that the speech is 4827 words long. and the slavery section is 1338, it composes about a quarter to a third of the speech. It is by far the most developed topic of the speech, followed by the subject of internal improvements at 580 words. The rest is made up mostly of detailing a few differences between the US and CS constitutions and making the case for the new country's survivability.

I am aware of the meaning of the term "state" in 1776. I am also aware of the fact that the American states were NEVER truly sovereign whatever the rhetoric to the contrary.

Were did I quote the Declaration? Any reference to it was in response to others attempting to justify the RAT Rebellion by referring to it.

Since when is debating historical and political points a claim to moral superiority or that my opponents are immoreal? I have not even claimed the North was "morally" superior to the South merely that the RAT Rebellion was illegal. One would have to be pretty stupid to claim that Grant or Sherman was morally superior to Lee or Jackson. We are not discussing morality. Now I do believe freedom is morally superior to slavery and that the CAUSE of the North was morally superior to the CAUSE of the South. But the people themselves? NO.

It is only your "heritage" because you choose to make it so. Unless you are a supporter of White Supremacy or slavery it is not your heritage and those are the only things the South was fighting for. Any other claims are just propaganda from the slavers or BS from their modern supporters.

And using your paranoia to justify supporting the CSA is just silly. If you are fighting pretend enemies you are not likely to be of much use fighting real ones. Defenders of the Slaverocracy are the Left's best friend since they make conservatives look like reactionary loons.

The "end of America" is EXACTLY what the RAT Rebellion was attempting so I cannot see that you are too concerned about that when you defend those who were trying to achieve precisely that end.

Nope. The Constitution even incorporates some of the exact language of the Articles. Had Congress believed the Convention went too far it could have rejected the proposal and the states could have not ratified. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify for a couple of years after the rest.

In actual fact, however, the Confederation government had collapsed and was powerless and almost all understood that. Just because the amending of the Articles changed 90% of it doesn't mean they committed "treason".

There was no "oppressive" federal government in 1861 that was just a slaver lie to bamboozle the gullible and ignorant. Secession had not been plotted for a decade because of any real oppression but because the slavers could see that their slaves were going to eventually be restricted in the new states to come and THEIR power (which was entirely aristocratic and based upon a TINY electorate) would be reduced.

Robert E. Lee's Opinion Regarding Slavery

And then there's this gem from January 1865 when Lee was reluctantly supporting the idea of recruiting slaves as combat troops.

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population."

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?

You were free to move into the new territory if you wanted. You just couldn't take your arbitrary luxury item with you.

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.

But Stephens gives one issue and one issue alone as the reason for the rebellion - slavery. He mentions tariffs as an irritant but not a cause.

"But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. 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."

Or the below gems from Lincoln. I'm not a Lincoln-hater, by the way. I fully understand the desire to preserve the Union. However, I don't despise my Confederate ancestors or wish to write them out of the human race. And I'm not so eager for a pat on the head from the liberal establishment ("Good conservative...good boy...you're the type of mainstream conservative we progressives can respect...") that I'm willing to join their crusade to eradicate Confederate symbols from our heritage and traditions.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."

— Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273

"See our present condition---the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another's throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another.

"Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated."

— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371

"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."

— 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 3, pp. 145-146

Or the below gems from Lincoln.

You forgot this one.

"...but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." -- First Lincoln Douglas debate.

Criticize Lincoln for his views if you must, Lord knows that by the standards of today he would most certainly be considered racist. But please point out to me a single southern leader, civilian or military, who had different, more enlightened views. Point out to me a single quote from a single southern leader that indicates that they thought the black man was their equal in any way at all, much less entitled to any of the same rights as a white man. Until you can do that then I suggest that any criticism of Lincoln without greater condemnation of southern leaders for their more racist views is extremely hypocritical.

I didn't post those quotes in criticism of Lincoln. Those were simply the mainstream racial views of most folks back then. I'm just sick of all the Politically Correct Holier-Than-Thou bashing of the Confederacy that goes on around here. People didn't get their little undies all in a twist over the Rebel Flag until about ten or twelve years ago. That's why it could be displayed in a positive manner in a mainstream TV series, even on a liberal network, as recently as the 1980's.

You can trace the current PC hysteria over the CBF back to Senator Moseley-Braun's demagoguery over this issue on 7/22/93. The Congressional copywrite for the logo of the United Daughters of the Confederacy came up for a routine 14 year extension. It was expected that the Senate would routinely pass the extension as they always had before. But Moseley-Braun hit the floor, screaming and wailing about racism and oppression. Senator Feinstein "rushed to her aid", as she was so "distraught" that she might "faint" at any moment. Most of the Senators, fearing being called a "racist", joined her, and the trademark extension was voted down 75-25.

That evening on the network news, Moseley-Braun was fawned over and "dramatic" footage was aired of her tirade, including Feinstein with her arm around her to keep her from "fainting". The left realized how cowardly the GOP is when the race card gets played, so they essentially declared a national war against all symbols of the Confederacy. Some of us have resisted joining them, recognizing not only that the anti-Dixie crusade is destructive in its own right, but that it can and will be used as a future basis for eradicating the memory of our Founding Fathers and, yes, even "racist" Lincoln.

The fact that it was not agreed to by the Colonists before their time does NOT change the fact that these charters were the established Law of the Land, and that the Colonies were, in fact and in law, full Dominions of the Crown. (Well, I simplify it a bit - The Commonwealth of Virginia was initially a privately-owned territory paid for by a stock-based exploration company. The wonders of financial incentive, huh? But I do digress...)

When Britain defeated the Netherlands did the people in New Amsterdam have any choice in becoming subjects of the King of England?

Amsterdam settled on land which was already under the Dominion of the Crown. In fact, they were required to pay annual dues to the King (through his representatives in Jamestown) in order to remain on that land. England claiming that colony as its own was merely reclaiming land which already belonged to them, according to established Western law.

Have you studied colonial history at all? These are really simple matters that anyone should know.

But that there is a huge difference between those declaring themselves free from an empire wherein they had NO representation and from a government instituted by the free choice of the People.

No difference at all, really. In fact, if you look more closely at the Founders' writings (if you can), you'll notice that there is NO "The People," as you like to think of it, but rather, there was "The States," which represented the citizens who were born and naturalized within their own respective realms.

Had the US government declared that formerly independent slave states were part of the Union without consultation of the people living in them then I would not argue that a rebellion was illegal.

The Union is a creation of the States, not vice versa. That fact alone is what separates this nation from all of the European mega-states - Power devolves from the bottom up, not the top down. Of course, those who benefit from the consolidation of power always tend to want it to be consolidated...

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.