Dixie's dilemma

At the beginning of the school year, Dixie Outfitters T-shirts were all the rage at Cherokee High School. Girls seemed partial to one featuring the Confederate battle flag in the shape of a rose. Boys often wore styles that discreetly but unmistakably displayed Dixie Outfitters' rebel emblem logo.
But now the most popular Dixie Outfitters shirt at the school doesn't feature a flag at all. It says: ''Jesus and the Confederate Battle Flag: Banned From Our Schools But Forever in Our Hearts.'' It became an instant favorite after school officials prohibited shirts featuring the battle flag in response to complaints from two African-American families who found them intimidating and offensive.

The ban is stirring old passions about Confederate symbols and their place in Southern history in this increasingly suburban high school, 40 miles northwest of Atlanta. Similar disputes over the flag are being played out more frequently in school systems -- and courtrooms -- across the South and elsewhere, as a new generation's fashion choices raise questions about where historical pride ends and racial insult begins.

Schools in states from Michigan to Alabama have banned the popular Dixie Outfitters shirts just as they might gang colors or miniskirts, saying they are disruptive to the school environment. The rebel flag's modern association with white supremacists makes it a flashpoint for racial confrontation, school officials say.
''This isn't an attempt to refute Southern heritage,'' said Mike McGowan, a Cherokee County schools spokesman. ''This is an issue of a disruption of the learning environment in one of our schools.''

Walter C. Butler Jr., president of the Georgia State Conference of the NAACP, said it is unreasonable to ask African Americans not to react to someone wearing the rebel flag. ''To ask black people to respect a flag that was flown by people who wanted to totally subjugate and dehumanize you -- that is totally unthinkable,'' he said.
But the prohibitions against flag-themed clothing have prompted angry students, parents, Confederate-heritage groups and even the American Civil Liberties Union to respond with protests and lawsuits that argue that students' First Amendment rights are being trampled in the name of political correctness.
''This is our heritage. Nobody should be upset with these shirts,'' said Ree Simpson, a senior soccer player at Cherokee who says she owns eight Confederate-themed shirts. ''During Hispanic Heritage Month, we had to go through having a kid on the intercom every day talking about their history. Do you think they allow that during Confederate History Month?''

Simpson said no one complains when African-American students wear clothes made by FUBU, a black-owned company whose acronym means ''For Us By Us.'' Worse, she says, school officials have nothing to say when black students make the biting crack that the acronym also means ''farmers used to beat us.'' Similarly, she says, people assume that members of the school's growing Latino population mean no harm when they wear T-shirts bearing the Mexican flag.
Simpson believes the rebel flag should be viewed the same way. The days when the banner was a symbol of racial hatred and oppression are long gone, she contends. Far from being an expression of hate, she says, her affection for the flag simply reflects Southern pride. ''I'm a country girl. I can't help it. I love the South,'' she said. ''If people want to call me a redneck, let them.''

It is a sentiment that is apparently widely shared at Cherokee, and beyond. The day after Cherokee Principal Bill Sebring announced the T-shirt ban on the school's intercom this fall, more than 100 students were either sent home or told to change clothes when they defiantly wore the shirts to school. In the weeks that followed, angry parents and Confederate heritage groups organized flag-waving protests outside the school and at several school board meetings.

''All hell broke loose,'' said Tom Roach, an attorney for the Cherokee County school system. When principals banned the shirts at other county high schools in the past, he said, ''there was no public outcry. No complaints. No problems.''

But the Confederate flag was a particularly hot topic in Georgia this year. Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes was upset in his re-election bid in part because he successfully pushed for redesign of the Georgia state flag, which was formerly dominated by the Confederate battle emblem. On the new state banner, the emblem is reduced to a small icon. During the campaign, Barnes' opponent, Sonny Perdue, called for a referendum on the new flag, a position that analysts say helped make him the state's first elected Republican governor since Reconstruction.

Elsewhere in the South, civil rights groups have mobilized to remove the banner in recent years. Activists had it removed from atop the South Carolina statehouse and from other public places, saying it is an insult to African Americans and others who view it as a symbol of bigotry and state-sanctioned injustice. But that campaign has stirred a resentful backlash from groups that view it as an attack on their heritage.

''We're not in a battle just for that flag, we're in a battle to determine whether our Southern heritage and culture survives,'' said Dan Coleman, public relations director for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, one of the groups that joined the protests at Cherokee High School.

The battle over Confederate-themed clothing has made its way to the courts, which generally have sided with school dress codes that prevent items that officials deem disruptive.

In a 1969 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District that school officials could not prohibit students from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, but only because the court found that the armbands were not disturbing the school atmosphere.

By contrast, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit earlier this year revived a lawsuit by two Kentucky students suspended for wearing shirts featuring the Confederate flag. The court said the reasons for the suspension were vague and remanded the case to a lower court, where it was dismissed after the school district settled with the students.

Also, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit earlier this fall sided with a Washington, N.J., student who challenged his school's ban on a T-shirt displaying the word ''redneck.'' The student was suspended from Warren Hills Regional High School for wearing the shirt, which school officials said violated their ban on clothing that portrays racial stereotypes. The school's vice principal said he took ''redneck'' to mean a violent, bigoted person.
But the court overturned the ban, saying the shirt was not proven to be disruptive. School officials, noting the school has a history of racial tensions, have promised to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

''Since last year, we have gotten well over 200 complaints about the banning of Confederate symbols in schools,'' said Kirk Lyons, lead counsel for the Southern Legal Resource Center, a North Carolina-based public-interest law firm that works to protect Confederate heritage and is in discussions with some families at Cherokee High School. He said the center is litigating six lawsuits and that dozens of others challenging Confederate clothing bans have been filed across the country.

As the controversy grows, Confederate-themed clothing has become more popular than ever. The owner of Georgia-based Dixie Outfitters says the firm sold 1 million T-shirts last year through the company's Web site and department stores across the South. Most of the shirts depict Southern scenes and symbols, often with the Confederate emblem.

''This is not your typical, in-your-face redneck type of shirt,'' said Dewey Barber, the firm's owner. ''They are espousing the Southern way of life. We're proud of our heritage down here.''

Barber said he is ''troubled'' that his shirts are frequently banned by school officials who view them as offensive. ''You can have an Iraqi flag in school. You can have the Russian flag. You can have every flag but the Confederate flag. It is puzzling and disturbing,'' he said.

Any general text on the war will tell you that President Lincoln issued the EP to cover only areas in actual rebellion against the lawful government. His thought his war powers as president only extended so far.

Oh, pooh. Sure, there are books that offer that ridiculous excuse, just as there are books that say ridiculous things like Lincoln wasn't prejudiced. As to his "power", those exempted areas were still under martial, or if you prefer, Military law for the rebellion. They were completely within the sway of his "war powers", otherwise they would not be under Military Rule. BTW, he wasn't going to exempt Tennessee at first, but did so only at the personal request of it's Military Governor, Andrew Johnson. The "emancipation" proclamation was nothing more than what he said it was, a war measure enacted against the states that refused to surrender by the deadline. He was attempting to disrupt the labor force that kept the Confederacy going. After it's release, The London Spectator put it best: "The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

President Lincoln was a strong proponent of the 13th amendment for the same reason. His presidential proclamation might not have force in time of peace.

LOL. When did he say that? Which 13th amendment, the first one Lincoln pushed that made slavery an untouchable institution forever and ever, or the second one which abolished it? Maybe you can post some snippets of Lincoln's stumping for the passage of the second one explaining his conerns about his "power".

President Lincoln eschewed strong measures for as long as he could. He wrote:...

I agree with you that the "proclamation" was nothing more than what Lincoln said it was, a war measure against the enemy. As he states in the quote you gave, he was trying to subvert the enemy's resources and apply them to his own use. And it is quite telling how he admits that the north should be grateful because every southern black induced into serving in the union military would mean that a union white man wouldn't have to.

The cause of the war WAS slavery and secession IS outside the law.

If the first point were true, and that's all there was to it, then the Southern states would have accepted Lincoln's attempt to pass the FIRST 13th amendment to the constitution, which PROTECTED slavery. It passed both houses of congress, and was ready for the States to ratify it, Illinois actually doing so before the Confederacy was created. Lincoln had even signed it, as a gesture of resolve on his part. If slavery was THE cause, then that should have prevented the whole thing, but it didn't, the Southern states seceded anyway. Your second point is ridiculous. It was never postively decided that secession is outside the law, by the Supreme Court especially. Also, the Supreme Court's decisions following the war that dealt with Military Occupation and Rule in Southern States upheld those actions by resorting to International Law principles applying to independant nations. Easy to see what the implications of that were. They tried to deflect that in their summaries, but those were the only points of law they could use to justify it. Nearly all historians worth at least a thimble full of spit will admit the legality of secession was never settled by courts at that time, or since.

What you see here is my flag. I personally don't give a damn if blacks are offended by a piece of cloth (it only means they need to study history a little further), but to me it is an emblem of freedom. I am all for liberty and the right of a person to express themselves in any way they wish. The price of liberty isn't cheap and a thicker skin and live and let live attitude are what is needed here. We don' need no stinkin' governmental (autocratic) school board "controls" on todays youth's ideology. We definitely don't need them being mass indoctrinated by the government about "proper thinking and sensitivity"! That sounds like Marxism is alive and well and living here in America. The kids need to be educated about liberty and what it exactly means. What the duties of a citizen of this republic are. PC'ism is what you are espousing with your opinion because it puts all control in the hands of the state. You want to live in this country and enjoy its freedoms, you have to be ready to allow others to do the same ... even if you don't like what they are wearing on their tee-shirts. I spent 20 years protecting their right to do so.

The record shows amply that the average southern white absolutely abhored the idea of black equality.

Most people, North, South, East and West, abhored the idea of black equality back then. There were the abolitionist pockets in New England, I suppose they can stand up and say "not us!", but even then, not all of them could be excluded.

The Revised Code of Indiana stated in 1862 that Negroes and mulattos are not allowed to come into the state ; forbade the consummation of legal contracts with Negroes and mulattos ; imposed a $500 fine on anyone who employed a black person; forbade interracial marriage; and forbade blacks from testifying in court against white persons.

Illinois, the land of Lincoln, added almost identical restrictions in 1848, as did Oregon in 1857. Senator Lyman Trimball of Illinois, a close confidant of Lincoln, stated that "our people want nothing to do with the Negro", and was a strong supporter of Illinois black codes. Most Northern states in the 1860s did not permit immigration by blacks or, if they did, required them to post a $1,000 bond that would be confiscated if they behaved improperly. Prohibitions against testifying against whites, voting, etc., were common parts of Northern black codes. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were not much friendlier. As a result, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent.

Northern newspapers were often just as racist as the Northern black codes were. The Philadelphia Daily News editorialized on November 22, 1860, that the African is naturally the inferior race. The Daily Chicago Times wrote on December 7, 1860, that nothing but evil has come from the idea of Abolition and urged everyone to return any escaped slave to his master where he belongs. On January 22, 1861, the New York Times announced that slavery would indeed be a very tolerable system if only slaves were allowed to legally marry, be taught to read, and to invest their savings. Just a few examples.

Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior. (PBS)

Alexis de Tocqueville, from his book 'Democracy in America': "The prejudice of race", he wrote, "appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists."

The resistance of Northerners to arming blacks was well documented before and after it was done. In fact, it infuriated many Notherners and cost Lincoln a significant part of the military vote in the 1864 election. Not all were against it, just as all Southerners weren't against arming blacks in the war.

Most Americans, North and South, abhored the idea of black equality back then. An unfortunate, but true, aspect of America's history.

Not necessarily.

1) The Southern states probably didn't trust the Northern states to ratify the amendment. And were it ratified, the idea of unamendable amendments was constitutionally dubious. It's likely that the amendment protecting slavery could have been undone at some later date.

2) The lure of an independent slave/cotton nation on the Gulf was too strong. The belief, disputed by many at the time but also accepted by many in the Deep South, was that slavery would be stronger outside the Union than inside it. Rightly or wrongly, it was assumed that Southern slaveholding planters would look after the interests of Southern slaveholding planters and other Southerners far better than the government of a larger country.

3) The momentum was too strong to resist. It was either proclaim a new nation now, or back down. Fire-eaters had been working for an independent Southern nation for years. They would be discredited, if they backed down when their goal seemed within reach. When would another chance come to get their own country?

I wouldn't say that slavery motivated all rebels or secessionists. The Upper Southern states would not have seceded because of slavery alone. It was the coming of war that tipped them into the Confederate camp. And the reasons people gave for their own actions varied. But if we're looking for deeper, underlying causes, slavery accounts for far more than any alternative explanation.

This debate is a preoccupation of our time. Supporters of an independent slaveholding Confederacy talked about other topics (agrarianism, Southern nationalism, "state's rights", liberty and popular sovereignty), rather than slavery alone, but most weren't ashamed or emabarassed about their support for or acceptance of slavery, or racial subordination. It was after the war that supporters of secession came to be apologetic or embarassed or evasive about slavery.

Both, as you say, tolerated slavery in their family - Lee freed the slaves of his father-in-law's estate in December 1862, only weeks before the Dent family did. Yet Lee fought for four years for a government that was founded on the belief that slavery was worth a war, and Grant fought for four years for a government that eventually dedicated its effort in part to the end of slavery. Go figure......Non-Sequitur

Condemn Mrs. Grant if you like, but her offense was the same as that of hundreds of thousands of slaveowners.....x

If you will notice, my role in this and other Civil War threads has never been to condemn one individual or sanctify another. I have always argued that the Civil War, as all wars, was fought by men of their time and that it is unjust to judge 19th Century men by 21st Century moral standards.

I am old enough to remember that the Civil War Centennial was celebrated without hatred. Now, the forces of Political Correctness are on a Crusade to equate the Confederate battle flag with the Nazi swastika and to equate the Army of Northern Virginia with the Waffen SS.

The flip side of that coin is the Politically Correct historical revisionism that Johnny Reb fought solely to maintain slavery and that Billy Yank fought solely to end slavery and bring about an era of racial equality and “Kum-Ba-Yah” racial harmony.

While it may be true that many New England regiments in general and the white officers of regiments such as the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Infantry in particular may have fought for such 21st Century values, the historical truth is that most of the Union army in general and the Irish Brigade in particular were not risking their lives in battle for those values.

I have no axes to grind in the American Civil War. During the 1860's, my family was back in Cuba providing Generals and Founding Fathers to the Cuban Republic and the Cuban wars of independence from Spain. My great-great-grandfather was a signatory to the first Cuban Emancipation Declaration but that same ancestor had owned slaves. That same ancestor was a poet and he published a poem honoring Abraham Lincoln and I have a copy of.

Was my great-great-grandfather truly concerned in 1868 with freeing slaves in Cuba or was he mostly concerned about gaining a tactical advantage against the Spaniards? Did he really admire Lincoln or did he think that writing a poem about Lincoln would curry favor in the United States for Cuban independence?

The self-righteous answer is, "Yes. My ancestor was a saint."

The truthful answer is, "I don't know."

What I do know is that, if a man feels strongly enough about the evils of slavery to send his men to get slaughtered before the entrenchments of Cold Harbor to end slavery, he would also have the cojones to order his wife not to bring his wife’s slave , “black Julia”, to his Headquarters as we all agree Julia Grant did prior to 1963.

What I do know is that McClellan wrote to Abraham Lincoln right after Malvern Hill that, “neither confiscation of property …or forcible abolition of slavery should be contemplated for a moment”.

What I do know is that, knowing the history of the Haiti slave revolt, men such as Lee would be wary of freeing slaves before they were educated and ready to succeed on their own after emancipation.

I do not see Julia Grant, U.S. Grant and R.E. Lee as flawed individuals. I see them all as good 19th Century men and women of their time who are now unfairly retroactively judged by 21st Century standards.

Now, why do I give a d@mn if the history of the American Civil War is revised to conform with Political Correctness? My ancestors did not have a dog in that fight unless you count making money in blockade-running.

I care because I see Cuban history being repeated in American history.

I have seen the flag that my great-great-grandfather died under in the 1868-1878 Ten Years War turned into a Communist symbol. I have seen my own family’s ancestors turned into Communist heroes in Cuba although we, their progeny who have inherited their values, have voted with our feet and become Americans by choice. I have heard Democrat Black Congressmembers dismiss Cuban Americans concerns about the Communist dictatorship in Cuba by simply saying that Cuban Americans “are members of the planter class”.

Nothing in the 19th Century was morally obvious. The freed black slaves that were sent from America to Liberia used their Western expertise to enslave the local blacks and slavery of native Liberians by Amero-Liberians existed until the League of Nations stepped in to abolish the practice in the 20th Century.

Yes, it may be safe to demonize the Confederacy and Robert E. Lee now because their historical record is not totally Politically Correct vis a vis slavery. Well, take it from me. Once you allow that demonization, it will not be long before you find out that none of America’s history is totally Politically Correct. And, yes, that history will be demonized.

Two brief points: many honorable regular German Army officers fought courageously in WWII. Yet we do not honor them;

Are you too young to remember when President Ronald Reagan defied the outcries of Political Correctness and honored the World War Two German war dead at the cemetery at Bitburg?

Second, even if you, as a military man, may have in mind Confederate gallantry when you think of the Confederate flag, do you really think the average person who uses that flag as a symbol has military honor on his or her mind?

In the U.S. Navy? Yes. The Navy named a submarine after Stonewall Jackson. In the U.S. Army? Yes. The U.S. Army named U.S. Army bases after Robert E. Lee and Braxton Bragg.

In the race-pimping headquarters of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? I don't give a d@mn.

You should think for yourself, maro. If you think only the thoughts that you believe "the common man" thinks, you are severly limiting your thought process. In fact, the "common man" may be totally at odds with your self-imposed thought restrictions.

And how does the average black person feel when he sees that flag?

How about the same as how a Native American feels when a Black honors a Buffalo Soldier?

How about the same as how a Black feels when he pulls out a One Dollar Bill with the portrait of George Washington, a slave owner?

How about the same as when a Black pulls out a Fifty Dollar bill with the portrait of U.S. Grant, the Comander of the Union Army of the Potomac and the last U.S. President whose family owned Slaves?

How about the same as when a Chicano goes to a city named after "Houston" or "Austin"?

How about the same as a white family whose ancestor was killed by Indians when the U.S. Army names an attack helicopter "Apache"?

The "average black man" votes Democrat and thinks that Republicans are racists. Should we become Democrats so as not to offend them?

History does not cuddle your Inner Child. Deal with it.

One does not have to hate Civil War era Southerners to believe that day-to-day use of that flag is not a good idea, and that wearing that flag in a public school is a breach of good order.

I never mentioned school in my post, maro. My children don't go to public school and they don't wear any emblems on their clothes. My post to you dealt solely with your post that "Slavery was evil; secession was illegal and treasonous. What would Jesus do? Wear a Confederate flag T-shirt? "

I pointed out that the Civil War was not a simple conflict between the Union men fighting to free the slaves and Confederates dying to keep slaves in chains.

Thanks for the interesting comments.

And yet, every week, some neo-confederate type attacks Lincoln for being a "racist" and tells us that the views of most people at the time shouldn't be taken into account.

I don't have any hostility to the South. If I spent the time I put in at Free Republic reading the New York Times instead, I'd probably be more sympathetic to Southern Heritage and even neo-confederate groups. But in the time I've spent here I've seen too many slams from Confederate types at the rest of the country. To justify their heroes they slam ours.

I'm not so much concerned about the Confederate Battle Flag or Southern Heritage. It's the American heritage that I'm worried about. Most of our problems are with the PC leftist crowd. It's a long shot that we'll see a revived Confederacy anytime soon. But it would be wrong to let Confederate attacks on gallant and decent Americans go unanswered.

It might seem to some that the Confederates were standing in the tradition of the founders, but to insist on that view, one has to ignore a lot of what Washington, Madison, Hamilton and others actually wrote and said. Rather than getting back to the founders, I suspect that a new confederate movement would mean losing much of what was valuable in the heritage of Washington.

Yes, President Lincoln was willing to largely placate the south in order to preserve the peace. Thanks for pointing that out.

What he --wouldn't do-- was agree to allow the expansion of slavery into the national territories.

And the war came -- because the slave power wouldn't agree to that.

They knew, and Lincoln knew, that if slavery were limited to the areas where it currently existed, it would die. Thomas Jefferson said that having slavery was like holding a wolf by the ears. You didn't like it, but you didn't dare let go. President Lincoln saw a way to let go and not have the wolf eat you. That is why he supported voting rights for blacks later on. Blacks were going to be in this country no matter what. The way had to be prepared.

That is why Booth shot him.

Walt

After it's release, The London Spectator put it best: "The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

That wasn't president Lincoln's fault. The Constitution clearly protected slavery.

But the London Spectator, you say?

The [London] Spectator continued" "He is not malignant against foreign countries; on the contrary, thinks they have behaved rather better than he expected. No power in Europe can take offense at the wording of the [12/01/62] Message, nor can anyone say that the Republic bends to dictation, or craves in any undignified way for foreign forbearance. The words might have been more elegant, bur the astutest diplomatist could have accomplished no more, and might, perhaps, have shown a reticence less complete."

The gist of the message was epitomized: "Mr. Lincoln has from the first explained that he is the exponent of the national will. He has not merely recognized it. Amidst a cloud of words and phrases, which, often clever, are always too numerous, a careful observer may detect two clear and definite thoughts. 1. The President will assent to no peace upon any terms which imply a dissolution of the Union. 2. He holds that the best reconstruction will be that which is accompanied by measures for the final extinction of slavery." '

In the President's discussions of peace, said the Spectator, "He expresses ideas, which, however quaint, have nevertheless a kind of dreamy vastness not without its attraction. The thoughts of the man are too big for his mouth." He was saying that a nation can be divided but "the earth abideth forever," that a generation could be crushed but geography dictated that the Union could not be sundered. As to the rivers and mountains, "all are better than one or either, and all of right belong to this people and their successors forever." No possible severing of the land but would multiply and not mitigate the evils among the American States.

"It is an oddly worded argument," said the Spectator, "the earth being treated as If it were a living creature, an Estate of the Republic with an equal vote on its destiny." In the proposals for gradual emancipated compensation there was magnitude: "Mr. Lincoln has still the credit of having been first among American statesmen to rise to the situation, to strive that reconstruction shall not mean a new lease for human bondage."

--Abraham Lincoln, The War Years, Vol. II, pp.331-333, by Carl Sandburg

Quote the Spectator all you like.

Walt

Northern newspapers were often just as racist as the Northern black codes were. The Philadelphia Daily News editorialized on November 22, 1860, that the African is naturally the inferior race. The Daily Chicago Times wrote on December 7, 1860, that nothing but evil has come from the idea of Abolition and urged everyone to return any escaped slave to his master where he belongs. On January 22, 1861, the New York Times announced that slavery would indeed be a very tolerable system if only slaves were allowed to legally marry, be taught to read, and to invest their savings. Just a few examples.

There was also an incident in Pennslyvania where southern slave catchers were beaten when they tried to capture escaped slaves. And there was an incident in Boston where a company of Marines had to escort an escaped slave to keep the people from freeing him.

Blacks could vote in at least 4 northern states.

What it came down to was that northerners would accept blacks if it helped preserve the Union, most southerners would fight to keep them from having equal rights.

Walt

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.