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.
The Treaty of Paris disagrees with you, Sir.
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.
Okay, fair enough.
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.
Your tone throughout these posts suggests otherwise. Perhaps you're just getting as excited about this argument as I am. These are always fun to participate in - And please, don't take anything I say here personally: We are both Freepers, we are both, presumably, conservatives, and we both have the same goals with respect to modern times. I do hold you in very high esteem, and consider you a good friend and an excellent ally in our fight against the horrors of liberalism. I don't want our little debates on the Semi-Weekly North vs. South Threads to distract us from that fact.
I do think, though, (and I am saying this with as much humility as I can muster), if you look a bit more deeply into primary material, and primary writings from the Colonial period, you'll find that the average American understood an absolute right to reorganize their government in the manner which they thought best fit them. And, if you look more closely at some of the other issues which were being debated in the 1840's through 1860's, you will find that slavery was a small portion of what was being argued. What was more of an issue were taxes, levies, "internal improvements" programs, and the tendency of incoming Administrations to use Washington City as a jobs program.
(After 1863, of course, slavery was all you heard argued - the North gave a much wider voice to those within their borders that were adamantly opposed to the inherited institution. But don't let that fool you: There is quite a bit of smoke and mirrors there, but the argument that this was the reason for going to war, or the cause of the war, was absolutely preposterous.)
I look forward to our ever-enduring debate. Whether on this thread, or on the next. (And the best part is, neither of us have to change our minds. We'll just keep on going as we are. I certainly don't think that makes either of us a lesser man, but who's to say? :) )
FReegards,
~dt~
And as you'll discover, you'll see that these states were exercising their complete and total sovereignty during this time. This does not match up with your argument that the states were not recognized as sovereigns.
The founders were clear that the Constitution of 1787 was a complete replacement for the Articles, not an amendment thereof. You need to check your sources again.
I'm going to ignore your third statement, as there is simply no factual basis whatsoever behind the claim that any conspiracy towards secession ever took place in the south.
Once again, the statement you pose is merely a sidenote in the entire speech, and is completely out of character with the rest of the oration. I suggest reading it in its entirety, as he has quite a bit more to say than that one point.
I have read it in it's entirety, and Stephens identifies one institution and one institution alone as the cause for the rebellion. Perhaps you have something that shows he didn't really mean what he said?
"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."
I posted an excerpt a couple of hundred replies ago in which I thought he outlined the causes for the war rather succinctly. I'll see if I can find other oratories by the gentleman to see if we can get some additional context out of him.
But slamming Lincoln as racist when the views of the southern leadership were worse is OK? Criticizing Lincoln for promoting colonization is fine but lets ignore the fact that Lee actually paid passage for former slaves to Liberia, thus putting his money into supporting colonization. You bemoan the supposed confederacy bashing and respond with bashing of your own.
Then why wasn't the Treaty of Paris signed and ratified by each individual state?
Very lame. Nowhere in his letter does Lee state or imply that blacks are his equal. Nowhere does he state or imply that they are deserving of any rights. Nowhere, in fact, does he suggest that anything should be done to hasten the end of slavery other than prayer. The letter is a very tepid criticism of slavery at best and, considering that as late as January 1865 Lee was stating that the relation of master and slave was the best situation for blacks in the confederacy, somewhat suspect.
By all means. While you're at it try placing these in context as well.
"African slavery is the cornerstone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depoulation and barbarism." - South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keitt, 1860
"The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
"[Recruiting slaves into the army] is abolition doctrine ... the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." - Editorial, Jan 1865, North Carolina Standard
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
As the last and crowning act of insult and outrage upon the people of the South, the citizens of the Northern States, by overwhelming majorities, on the 6th day of November last, elected Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin, President and Vice President of the United States. Whilst it may be admitted that the mere election of any man to the Presidency, is not, per se, a sufficient cause for a dissolution of the Union; yet, when the issues upon, and circumstances under which he was elected, are properly appreciated and understood, the question arises whether a due regard to the interest, honor, and safety of their citizens, in view of this and all the other antecedent wrongs and outrages, do not render it the imperative duty of the Southern States to resume the powers they have delegated to the Federal Government, and interpose their sovereignty for the protection of their citizens.
What, then are the circumstances under which, and the issues upon which he was elected? His own declarations, and the current history of the times, but too plainly indicate he was elected by a Northern sectional vote, against the most solemn warnings and protestations of the whole South. He stands forth as the representative of the fanaticism of the North, which, for the last quarter of a century, has been making war upon the South, her property, her civilization, her institutions, and her interests; as the representative of that party which overrides all Constitutional barriers, ignores the obligations of official oaths, and acknowledges allegiance to a higher law than the Constitution, striking down the sovereignty and equality of the States, and resting its claims to popular favor upon the one dogma, the Equality of the Races, white and black." -- Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession
SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana
This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Convention
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
Gentlemen, I see before me men who have observed all the records of human life, and many, perhaps, who have been chief actors in many of its gravest scenes, and I ask such men if in all their lore of human society they can offer an example like this? South Carolina has 300,000 whites, and 400,000 slaves. These 300,000 whites depend for their whole system of civilization on these 400,000 slaves. Twenty millions of people, with one of the strongest Governments on the face of the earth, decree the extermination of these 400,000 slaves, and then ask, is honor, is interest, is liberty, is right, is justice, is life, worth the struggle?
Gentlemen, I have thus very rapidly endeavored to group before you the causes which have produced the action of the people of South Carolina. -- Speech of John Preston to the Virginia Convention
This new union with Lincoln Black Republicans and free negroes, without slavery, or, slavery under our old constitutional bond of union, without Lincoln Black Republicans, or free negroes either, to molest us.
If we take the former, then submission to negro equality is our fate. if the latter, then secession is inevitable --- -- Address of William L. Harris of Mississippi
But I trust I may not be intrusive if I refer for a moment to the circumstances which prompted South Carolina in the act of her own immediate secession, in which some have charged a want of courtesy and respect for her Southern sister States. She had not been disturbed by discord or conflict in the recent canvass for president or vice-president of the United States. She had waited for the result in the calm apprehension that the Black Republican party would succeed. She had, within a year, invited her sister Southern States to a conference with her on our mutual impending danger. Her legislature was called in extra session to cast her vote for president and vice-president, through electors, of the United States and before they adjourned the telegraphic wires conveyed the intelligence that Lincoln was elected by a sectional vote, whose platform was that of the Black Republican party and whose policy was to be the abolition of slavery upon this continent and the elevation of our own slaves to equality with ourselves and our children, and coupled with all this was the act that, from our friends in our sister Southern States, we were urged in the most earnest terms to secede at once, and prepared as we were, with not a dissenting voice in the State, South Carolina struck the blow and we are now satisfied that none have struck too soon, for when we are now threatened with the sword and the bayonet by a Democratic administration for the exercise of this high and inalienable right, what might we meet under the dominion of such a party and such a president as Lincoln and his minions. -- Speech of John McQueen, the Secession Commissioner from South Carolina to Texas
History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. -- Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention
#####You bemoan the supposed confederacy bashing and respond with bashing of your own.#####
I'm not bashing him or calling him a racist. I'm just trying to show that A) hardly anyone's views back them were pristine on racial issues by today's standards and B) when the left gets through censoring every symbol of the Confederacy they'll turn their guns on Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and even Lincoln, using the same arguments they used against the Confederates. That's the point. Best of luck to you if you try to "explain" to them that Washington & Madison were "good" slave owners while the Confederates were "bad" ones, or that Lincoln's opposition to racial equality and integration wasn't all that bad since everyone back then felt that way. The same leftists who pat you on the head right now for joining them in condemning the Confederacy will roll right over you with a smirk on their face.
No Confederate Flag shirts,no Che Guevara shirts,no black power shirts or anything that disrups what SUPPOSEDLY schools are for -to acquire and analyze knowledge and make students eventually self sufficient adults.
Some people start at the wrong end. They start with the objection to seeing the Confederacy as "evil." "The Confederacy can't be evil," they think, "therefore it couldn't have been so bad ..." But that's starting with conclusions and making the evidence fit what you've already decided.
If you start at the other end, with the historical evidence, you're not obligated to find the Confederates evil, but you may find out why Washington, Madison, and Lincoln were on balance better for America, in spite of their flaws, than Davis or Yancey or Keitt or the other secessionists.
####We don't have any trouble today saying that Churchill was more or less a "good" imperialist and Hitler a "bad" one, or that Truman and Eisenhower were "good" hegemons and Stalin a "bad" one.####
We don't, but how about the left? It was the cultural left that launched this war against Confederate symbols. And they didn't launch it in a void. They launched it as a wedge issue to get at the founding principles of our nation. Try telling a liberal that the British Empire was a good thing or that the Cold War was Stalin's fault, not America's. Best of luck!
Until then, stay safe, and have a pleasant evening!
There are good people from the South, some of which are in here countering your neo-confederate revisionist history lessons.
Suprise...I am neither old, (44) uneducated,(masters degree), or racist. Forget your weird stereotypical ideas.
You haven't got a proverbial clue.
I simply love my heritage, and my Southland.......
Which side? Confederate-American or Union-American.
They were ALL Americans.
Very true, at least the LOS their own website finally revealed itself, and their real subversive 'goals'. The real truth is what they state to each other offline, but sometimes they slip, and it all comes forth.
"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."
The malcontents in question, identical mindset to that of the LOS crowd, are not happy restricting their blatant lies to those only residing in the South, they attempt to infiltrate the GOP & other conservative groups in other portions of the nation with their continued bitterness and foolish schemes to form a separate entity based on the failures of throughly defeated past, between the years 1865 through 1965. What a way to exist. Like America is not confronting enough problems.
Keep up the fine work. Thanks for stating the real historical record.
Indeed it does.
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.