Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Civil war erupts over Confederate handbags
DFW ^ | January 6, 2006 | JIM DOUGLAS

Posted on 01/06/2006 12:05:39 PM PST by stainlessbanner

BURLESON — Two North Texas high school students who were kicked out of class for displaying rebel flags vow to take their fight to court. They said they are proud of their heritage, but Burleson High School education officials maintain the Confederate symbol is offensive.

Ashley Thomas remembered how it all started. "Principal comes up and says, 'You've got to get rid of your purse... it's racist."

Ashley and Aubrie McAllum both received purses patterened after the Confederate battle flag from their parents for Christmas. Both girls decided to take their presents to school.

"I don't have 'KKK' written on me or anything; it's just a purse," Aubrie said. "Doesn't have anything to do with what color you are."

The students were asked to leave their purses with the principal; they elected to leave school after calling their parents.

Ashley was sent home three times this week. "I'm at the point where I really don't know what to do," she said. "I want to keep going to school and get my education, but this is my life. I was born and raised in the South. Why is the flag so bad?"

Here's the answer, from Burleson ISD spokesman Richard Crummel: "It's a violation of the dress code," he said. "We don't want students to wear anything that might cause a disruption, and that symbol has done that in the past."

"Then that's a heritage violation on her, on me... on all of us," said Aubrie's father, Rick McAllum. "So we can push it."

McAllum belongs to the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Ashley's mom, Joni Thomas, is from New York. But the parents of both girls praised their daughters, and vowed to fight.

"I'm hiring a lawyer," Thomas said. "I'm going all the way with it, because I think it's wrong."

Burleson High School, with a 2,200 student enrollment, is about 90 percent white, 8 or 9 percent Hispanic. There are very few African Americans.

"We want to be sensitive to everyone; make it comfortable in school for all our students," Crummel said.

Both girls said they have never been in trouble and don't want trouble now.

But they don't want to back down, either.

School officials know controversy often follows the Confederate flag, and they will not let it in.

The girls as of Friday, decided to go back to school


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: confederate; dixie; handbags; heritage; heroines; history; ignorance; lawsuit; martyrs; tx; violation; wbts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-539 next last
To: SauronOfMordor
Would YOU want to be in a factory in Georgia in August without air conditioning?

No, but then I wouldn't want to be picking cotton in a Georgia field in August, either. That didn't stop the weathy Georgians from buying people and forcing them to do it.

251 posted on 01/06/2006 3:06:14 PM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

1837 The Panic of 1837 was a severe setback to the nascent state bank and to several ambitious programs of public improvements, including the Clinton-Kalamazoo Canal
1838 Patriot War
1840 Douglass Houghton reported finding copper deposits on the Keweenaw Peninsula.
1846 Marji-Gesick, an Ojibwa Indian, pointed out a large deposit of iron ore to prospector Philo Everett near the present-day city of Negaunee.
1847 A law was passed by the State Legislature to re-locate the state capital from Detroit to a site "in the township of Lansing, in the county of Ingham."
1855 Michigan State University is founded as the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, becoming the first land grant university in the United States.
1879 New State Capitol dedicated in Lansing. The structure cost $1,510,130.
1890s and 1900s Ford, Chrysler and General Motors were founded in southeastern Michigan.
1937 Flint Sit-Down Strike ended with official recognition of the United Auto Workers by General Motors.
1943 Riot broke out pitting whites against blacks during wartime.
1957 Five-mile long Mackinac Bridge opened November 1.
1967 Race riots struck the city of Detroit. After 5 days of rioting, 43 people lay dead, 1189 injured and over 7000 people had been arrested. The riot had lasting effects on the entire metro region and is usually cited as one of the reasons the Detroit area is among the most segregated areas in the United States.
1974 Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids became the 38th President of the United States.
1987 Michigan celebrated 150 years of statehood.
2002 Michigan elects its first woman governor, Jennifer Granholm (D).




Michigan as a haven of integration?! That picture was some 4-5 decades after the war. The fact that there aren't any blacks pictured is perhaps not very flattering for MI. [see 1943 above, and several entries later.]


252 posted on 01/06/2006 3:06:51 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor

"A free man working his own land would be much more productive, and could bid a higher price for land"

With what money? We're talking 40 acres and a mule here, that's it.


253 posted on 01/06/2006 3:10:02 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Termite_Commander

No apology needed. I shouldn't have been so short and I am sorry if I came off a bit snooty.


254 posted on 01/06/2006 3:13:10 PM PST by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923

No, not at all. Don't worry about it.


255 posted on 01/06/2006 3:14:32 PM PST by Termite_Commander (Warning: Cynical Right-winger Ahead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
our "barefooted, hungry lads in tattered gray rags" had NOTHING in excess except VALOR & DEDICATION.

Our chief weapon is VALOR...VALOR and DEDICATION...DEDICATION and VALOR.... Our two weapons are VALOR and DEDICATION...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are VALOR, DEDICATION, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as VALOR, DEDICATION,.... I'll come in again.

(yes, I am mocking you)

256 posted on 01/06/2006 3:16:17 PM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider

So you find it amusing that northern soldiers raped southern women and burned Atlanta? No wonder you watch the Beverly Hillbillies.


257 posted on 01/06/2006 3:17:25 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You're like saying someone is 'a little bit pregnant.' If they want no mention of the Confederacy, why stop at a stupid purse?

OTOH, if they want to control student dress code, WHY STOP AT A STUPID PURSE?

That's exactly why the dad has a good chance of winning. The girls didn't violate any district dress code.

Duh.


258 posted on 01/06/2006 3:21:52 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"They formally seceded first"

Unfortunately for them, they never legally seperated. Thus, they were defacto traitors to the country they no longer considered themselves to be a part of.

As you assert, the military back then was still operating under the original design of the Constitution. Everything was organized individually by the States themselves, into state militias. Hence, nearly every unit that fought on both sides of the war had their state of origin in their name. This decentralized military is probably one of the reasons why the war got so bloody as they were no integrated (not black-white, I mean between States) units in the military and it was extremely difficult for each side to accept or even acknowledge the legitimate differences and problems that did exist in the country between the different states.

This country today would be screwed if the South wasn't still a part of us. This is why I'm most glad they lost.

259 posted on 01/06/2006 3:24:04 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
Ok, so can you understand the anger of Blacks toward that flag your ancestors fought under?

You do know that there were Blacks who fought under that banner as well. There's even a society for descendants of Black Confederates. They aren't angry toward that flag.

That was the battle flag anyway. The formal national flag of the Confederate States of America was different. The Naval ensign was similar to the battle flag, and in fact the flags that are sometimes seen today are more like that navel ensign than the square Battle Flag that the Army of Norther Virginia (among others) fought under.

This was the first national flag of the Confederacy:

http://www.confederateflags.org/images/SBVicks.gif

This was the second, which as you can see did incorporate the battle flag motif.

And this was the final one

(In searching for the information at that first link, I found this on, on Lee's "body servant", Rev. William Mack Lee who had been a preacher before the war started. He had been a slave on Lee's family lands, but all Lee's slaves were freed 10 years before the war began. He was still alive in 1918, with eight daughters ,twenty-one grand children and eight great-grand children, as of that year. It's an interesting little vignette.

260 posted on 01/06/2006 3:29:04 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
You're like saying someone is 'a little bit pregnant.'

No, I'm saying it not a Good Idea, to compare Robert E. Lee to Adolph Hitler.

261 posted on 01/06/2006 3:33:49 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: PMCarey
I see seeds of truth in both arguments. Slavery was the catalyst on which the Southern States could no longer tolerate encroachment by the Federal government. They had according to Mississippi's declaration of secession more than 4 billion of money at stake. The federal government's encroachment on slavery represents a conflict of state's rights vs federal power. Thus you are both right. Slavery causes the war because government regulation of it against the will of the states threatens states rights.

Georgia's declaration of secession in its entirety emphasizes that the conflict is over states rights and slavery is the issue which has created the conflict of interest. The declaration says:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them.


The State of South Carolina's declaration makes it even clearer that the Southern States are concerned that the Federal Government will use slavery to violate States Rights. This declaration says:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

If anyone is interested in seeing these declarations in their entirety they can go to:
Georgia
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

South Carolina
http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm
262 posted on 01/06/2006 3:36:22 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
As you assert, the military back then was still operating under the original design of the Constitution. Everything was organized individually by the States themselves, into state militias. Hence, nearly every unit that fought on both sides of the war had their state of origin in their name. This decentralized military is probably one of the reasons why the war got so bloody as they were no integrated (not black-white, I mean between States) units in the military and it was extremely difficult for each side to accept or even acknowledge the legitimate differences and problems that did exist in the country between the different states.

This just wasn't true, although it was somewhat more true of the South than the North. Yes units were raised in the various states, and often officered by men from the those states. But in the Union army at least, they were completely integrated. Supply, chain of command, everything. Except at first perhaps, since at that point the units were indeed state militia units, and the Union Army was just not prepared to properly integrate them.

Much the same was true in the South, although it lasted longer, and logistics wise, the Confederate Army never did get completely integrated.

Not being prepared for any war, let alone the next one, is an old American tradition, not fully broken until about 1990, and it will return, probably sooner rather than later. It's demise started with having no choice but to be prepared, at least for the SIOP war. (AKA Globabl Thermonuclear War..toe to toe with the Ruskis)

263 posted on 01/06/2006 3:39:32 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Should a T-shirt stating "If your great-grandfather was a Confederate, you're a descendant traitor."

What a ridiculous statement. You are one of the reasons I ever deign to join these discussions. You infer that my ancestor was a traitor. He was never thought of that way immediately after the war nor in the intervening years until revisionists like you suddenly come along. If these men were traitors why are there Federal military installations named after them? Naval ships?

A banner that was accepted for 140 years as a symbol of a struggle for state's rights-not only here but internationally as well- which flies over the graves of thousands of brave men, is now compared to a t-shirt calling one's ancestor a traitor.

You are so far in left field that you're under the bleachers. sheesh.

264 posted on 01/06/2006 3:48:52 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Unfortunately for them, they never legally seperated.

Says who? Lincoln?

But as long as we are talking legalities, what of the secession of West Virgina from Virgina? The Constitution says no state shall be formed from the territory of an existing state, without the permission of its legislature. Now you would have it that Virginia and the other states of the Confederacy never legally seceded, Lincoln said there was no way they could do so. But it can't be both ways, if the states never seceded, then Virginia was a state, and West Virginia should have been restored to it after the war. And if the states never seceded, why did they have to petition for readmission to the Union? That process was strung out over several years, July of 1866 to July of 1870.

The Union, and particularly those who took over after the assassination of Lincoln, had it both ways. The states were considered to have no longer been in the Union when that was convenient, and their citizens to have been citizens of the US, and thus traitors and rebels, when that was convenient.

I would point out that the greatest "traitors" of all, at least in some peoples eyes, The President of the Confederacy, the members of it's Legislature, and it's senior military officers, were never even formally accused of treason, let alone convicted of it. In fact no one was. Only the commander of the Andersonville prison was charged with "war crimes". The Constitution of the United States was amended to prevent them, the former Confederates, from taking part in government ever again, but many of them did, with permission as provided for in the 14th amendment. That includes participation in the Spanish American War.

This country today would be screwed if the South wasn't still a part of us. This is why I'm most glad they lost.

Yes in the long run it was a Good Thing. But even better would have been for the North not to have forced the issue and let slavery die the natural death it was already headed for. And for the Federal Government to have stayed within the bounds set by the Constitution. There could have been many Constitutional, and peaceful, ways to eliminate slavery, if that were what President Lincoln was really about.

265 posted on 01/06/2006 4:03:28 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
Unfortunately for them, they never legally seperated.

On what grounds do you make this claim? This debate has never been resolved. Several of our founding fathers supported the idea of nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Also if the States never legally separated then why were they denied representation in Congress after the Civil War? What was with the charade of Congress "readmitting" the southern states to the Union if they never left it. Many of the things done by Congress during the Era of Reconstruction were patently unconstitutional. For example, even after the President declared that the states were once again in full communion with the union (the president believed that the states had never left the union) the Congress didn't agree. The Congress refused to admit Southern Representatives after elections and proceeded to pass Constitutional amendments. Congress behavior on this is strange because it said they were not legally part of the union, yet it still submitted the proposed constitutional amendments to the Southern States for ratification. When the Southern States refused, the Congress passed the Reconstructions Acts dissolving the state legislatures and placing the South under Martial Law until they ratified the 14th amendment. If the Southern states had not legally separated why would congress submit the amendments to them for ratification? In fact, Several of the Northern states were so incensed by the Federal governments heavy handed tactics that they rescinded their ratifications of the 14th amendment. The federal government chose to ignore these rescissions and continued to count them. The Reconstruction is a Dark Period in the history of the Republic and force is an illegitimate way to amend the Constitution. In favor of your argument the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1868)that secession was unconstitutional.

Thus at the end of the Civil War you have an interesting scenario. The President and the Supreme Court say that the South had never seceded, while Congress sent mixed messages on the issue. The Congress submitted constitutional amendments to them while later saying they had left the union and Congress voted gradually to readmit them as they ratified the 14th amendment. As you can see this is a complicated period in American history that we still haven't come to terms with.
266 posted on 01/06/2006 4:07:22 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: groanup
You infer that my ancestor was a traitor.

Awwwwwwww. Poor little you gets offended because someone HYPOTHISISES a situation where a student comes to the same school mentioned in this article with a shirt accusing Confederates of being traitors.

If you had an ounce intellectual honesty, you'd be able to comprehend that this is EXACTLY analagous to a black parent/student seeing the Confederate flag and viewing it entirely as a symbol of slavery and oppression.

Given your reaction, I'm betting you're incapable of making this comparison.

However, you should be able to conclude that other people are just as incapable of viewing the Confederate flag as a 140 year old symbol of the struggle for States rights.

267 posted on 01/06/2006 4:29:36 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

You raise an excellant point. I have always wondered how the cessation of W. virginia was legal.


268 posted on 01/06/2006 4:30:17 PM PST by avile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Thanks for the pings


269 posted on 01/06/2006 4:38:18 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy (Those who beat their swords into plow shears….will plow for those who don’t.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

You can kiss this descendent of traitor's ass, buttwipe.


270 posted on 01/06/2006 4:44:08 PM PST by wardaddy (feel the love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: avile
You raise an excellant point. I have always wondered how the cessation of W. virginia was legal.

Essentially, the rump delegation of representatives from Virginia that remained loyal to the Union were recognized as her legitimate congressmen. As they were from the NE area of Virginia, they issued the permission required by the Constitution, and since they were the only VA reps in congress, they got their way.

271 posted on 01/06/2006 4:55:54 PM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

You could actually try reading and understanding my ENTIRE posts before you resort to name calling.


272 posted on 01/06/2006 5:05:42 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

South bashers don't deserve nuance.

As a white guy I'm offended by X, nearly all Rap, almost all black leaders since Booker T except Clarence Thomas and a few pundits

....but that doesn't stop black kids or wannabes from wearing that crap or listening to it or questionable black leaders being lionized and I just have to deal with that

same as they OUGHT to have to....contrary to conventional wisdom, they aren't special


273 posted on 01/06/2006 5:27:13 PM PST by wardaddy (feel the love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Slavery was the catalyst on which the Southern States could no longer tolerate encroachment by the Federal government. - from the Georgian declaration

In what way were the rights of Georgia encroached upon? Had the Federal government attempted to outlaw slavery? No. Indeed, Lincoln promised not to do anything about slavery in the states in which it resided. And of course, Lincoln had not even taken office when that Georgian declaration was written and the previous administrations were all hospital to the institution of slavery. Douglas's popular sovereignty was an attempt to allow slavery's spread.

The problem really came down to this: Lincoln and many in the North wanted the expansion of slavery halted with the hopes that with its containment it would eventually wither on the vine. The South wanted to see slavery expanded into the territories in the belief that that would strengthen their political power and safeguard slavery in perpetuity.

Let me say one thing more. The true test of Democracy is how people respond when they lose an election. Do they react with respect and acceptance towards the democratic institutions or do they react in anger and bullets? Lincoln was elected fairly and constitutionally. The South did not wait to see what Lincoln would actually do as President; instead they declared themselves independent. Why? The bottom line is they seceded because they lost an election.

So much for their high ideals.

274 posted on 01/06/2006 5:42:44 PM PST by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Abraham Lincoln also wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa which is an interesting slant on the Great Emancipator.

So did Robert Lee, John Breckenridge, James Monroe, etc., etc.

275 posted on 01/06/2006 5:49:40 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Lincoln was not the hero he was painted to be, that's for sure.

"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." -- Robert Lee, January 1865.

And Lee was?

276 posted on 01/06/2006 5:52:27 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
The truth is not pretty and not as simple as you would like for it to be.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." -- Jefferson Davis, March 1861

I guess not.

277 posted on 01/06/2006 5:54:28 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
More accurately, the war was about a group of states that didn't like the outcome of a constitutionally valid election, and they wanted to take their ball and go home. Petty, childish, and in the end, tragic.

If the results weren't so tragic for so many people on both sides of the conflict, the arrogant, ignorant pretensions of the Confederate secessionists would be worth a lot of laughs. What a pitiful and inept gang and like you say, history provides few examples of such shortsighted petulant childishness.

278 posted on 01/06/2006 5:55:10 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Believe Burleson High School's mascot is an elk?

In light of this "issue," it would have been interesting if they were the Redskins, or Indians, or some other non-pc group.

279 posted on 01/06/2006 6:00:58 PM PST by Trajan88 (www.bullittclub.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Yes, R.E. Lee was a hero. Do you suggest otherwise?


280 posted on 01/06/2006 6:01:11 PM PST by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Lincoln didn't end slavery. He didn't even scratch the surface.

No he just shepherded the 13th Amendment through the House and Senate and to the states for ratification.

Just out of curiosity what did Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson or Jefferson Davis to do end slavery? Other than launch their rebellion and lose it, I mean?

281 posted on 01/06/2006 6:01:43 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
...and a war to protect northern industry at the expense of Southern industy.

What southern industry?

282 posted on 01/06/2006 6:03:07 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Not according to the Union.

Or the rest of the world for that matter.

283 posted on 01/06/2006 6:04:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #284 Removed by Moderator

To: Blzbba
Did Ike intentionally target citizens or target German factories?

Then Hap Arnold then, who deliberately firebombed Japanese cities trying for the largest amount of damage? And what factory was at ground zero at Nagasaki or Hiroshima?

285 posted on 01/06/2006 6:09:11 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
from Burleson ISD spokesman Richard Crummel: "It's a violation of the dress code," he said. "We don't want students to wear anything that might cause a disruption"

If they don't want students to wear anything that even might cause a disruption then they better stick to school uniforms, because in our current oversensitized, politically correct society someone is always bound to be offended by something. And if it's not clothes it'll be something else (stickers, posters, pins, etc.). Where does it end?

Of course if someone came to school decked out in a Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, or Ramsey Clark t-shirt I suspect spokesman Crummel would be just fine with that, even though the all in the above group not only despise America but work overtime to hurt us as much as possible.

286 posted on 01/06/2006 6:09:29 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AzaleaCity5691
The slaves probably would not have remained slaves, because in the Southern cities, agitation was growing due to immigrant laborers who resented the fact that they had to compete with slave labor for work. Political pressure from the cities (particularly the seaports) would have forced slavery to end by the 1870s, had the South won.

That's ridiculous. Look at the census data for 1870. In most southern states the percentage of foreign born people were 1 or 2 percent of the population. There was no immigrant population competing with slave labor for work because there was virtually no immigrant population to begin with. And what population there was wasn't competing for work commonly held by blacks.

287 posted on 01/06/2006 6:19:23 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse
Well, some folks still believe their ancestors were promised forty acres and a mule.

Had it been up to me, the freed slaves would have received land confiscated from the large plantations that they and their ancestors had worked for generations. Despite the uncomfortable specter of far left socialism's disrespect for property rights, it would have been an act of justice to compensate the freed men for generations of forced labor. Also it would have made the freed slaves less vulnerable to future exploitation at the hands of the antebellum elite and hastens the freedmen's progress into being secure taxpaying citizens.

Some of their descendants still want the land and the mule, plus interest.

The current reparations push lack both the justice of immediate land distribution and the utility of putting the newly freed slaves on a secure footing in a dangerous land and time.

288 posted on 01/06/2006 6:24:14 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Getsmart64
Show me a historical factual quote of a Southern diplomat stating that the only reason their state was voting for succession was because of slavery....please...

How about these?

"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 Secession Convention, 1861

"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

"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

"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. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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." -- Alexander Stephens, March 1861

289 posted on 01/06/2006 6:26:10 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
I was under the impression that Jackson was an instructor at VMI or the Citadel or somesuch. He wasn't rich, or a member of the Plantation Class, IIRC.

But he did own slaves, as many as 9 at a single time.

290 posted on 01/06/2006 6:28:09 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: rebelyell
Yes, R.E. Lee was a hero. Do you suggest otherwise?

Depends on ones point of view, doesn't it?

291 posted on 01/06/2006 6:33:29 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

I agree with your argument. If this school allows Malcolm X and Rap t-shirts, then they must allow these girls to bring these purses.

I too find Rap and X highly offense and don't any of this crap around my kids. For me, I'd prefer the schools wipe it all out and force all student clothing and attire to bland and functional, if not a uniform.

If you felt that I implied you or others are descendants of traitors if your lineage pass through Confederates, I appologize. That was not my intent, nor do I believe this personally.

I often chose to argue sides I do not necessary agree with, but a side that has few defenders, just for the enjoyment of debating as filler during parts of my day.


292 posted on 01/06/2006 6:44:16 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
our "barefooted, hungry lads in tattered gray rags" had NOTHING in excess except VALOR & DEDICATION.

Well, that was only their condition before the war. After it started, they all got a gray uniform and a rifle.

293 posted on 01/06/2006 7:07:08 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
from Burleson ISD spokesman Richard Crummel: "It's a violation of the dress code," he said. "We don't want students to wear anything that might cause a disruption, and that symbol has done that in the past."

Once again, the courts give an incentive to people to be hyper-sensitive so that they can promote their viewpoint and exclude others' views.

294 posted on 01/06/2006 7:11:50 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rock_lobsta

Drop the smiley face and I'd agree with you.


295 posted on 01/06/2006 7:15:21 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
The legal test is whether the "speech" is substantially likely to cause a significant disruption to the school's primary purpose...

(which is education, in case they've forgotten...)

Most of those flags are not likely to cause a disruption. However, since liberals have pioneered the method of screaming at the slightest violation of their tender sensibilites, they create their own Free Speech rules, whereby they can restrict your "speech" in school simply by reacting disruptively towards it.

296 posted on 01/06/2006 7:21:27 PM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
There are honorable people who have ancestors on both sides of the WBTS. It was a grievous time in the history of our nation. The idea of brother taking arms against brother is at once the most noble of causes and the most tragic. When men feel so strongly about an idea, a country, a consitution that they are willing to sacrafice their fortunes and families and their lives we should pay attention.

The men on both sides of this conflict were the same. The most noble and genuine people who ever inhabited the earth. The Judeo_Christian culture that proved its bona-fides for the next hundred and fifty years.

Slavery was the abomination of the time. But neither North nor South saw it as a humane issue, they saw it as an economic issue. They considered themselves humane operators of the insitution, right or wrong that they were.

Your sniveling about hypothesizing is disingenuous. You have inferred often about the T-shirt propoganda and your inference is that MY ancestors were traitors. Well, my friend. You could also be called a traitor. If you'll read (you can read can't you, well of course you can you obviously can type but that doesn't mean you can think) the Declaration of Independence it states that a government that becomes oppressive should be overthrown.

What did the South do? They didn't even overthrow. They opted out. And you and your ignorant brethren have taken one issue, slavery, and made it the reason for a four year war of vast and universal consequences. No conflict so long and vast and tragic as that could be about one issue of political decision. It is like saying that WWII was about Japanese planes.

297 posted on 01/06/2006 7:27:13 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
"I will not surrender a symbol of southern heritage to a bunch of retards who run around in white sheets burning crosses thinking that that somehow honors God."

Unlike Pat Robertson I'll never attempt to speak for God, but I do believe folks who share your sentiment are truly blessed. Peace to you and yours my fellow American.

298 posted on 01/06/2006 7:29:19 PM PST by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
This just wasn't true, although it was somewhat more true of the South than the North. Yes units were raised in the various states, and often officered by men from the those states. But in the Union army at least, they were completely integrated. Supply, chain of command, everything. Except at first perhaps, since at that point the units were indeed state militia units, and the Union Army was just not prepared to properly integrate them.

I looked into this more and you are definately correct that the federal army was very integrated at the start. Thank you.

However, the federal army when the war starts is only 16,000 strong. Distributed mostly throughout the western territories, along the Canadian border and near the Potomic. In a few years this grows into nearly 4 million men and boys having served on both sides combined. That's a 250 times increase in size!

What I was trying to get at was that most military units that fought were regionally (State) provided. And those who fought side-by-side were mostly all from the same state or sub region in a state or near a major river artery. This is nothing like todays military, where any random selection of 10 soldiers from a given unit is highly likely to consist of men from 9 or more States. A military this integrated just couldn't break down into a North and South and go at it today. Nor could we grow it 250 times in size to fight ourselves.

Chain of command would have to be integrated because you couldn't politically have a single state dominate all positions. Plus, we all know Lee was offered the Union Army, but went Confederate because he stayed with his home state. As did most West Pointers. Thus, the leadership of both armies were integrated before the war and then spilt and formed 2 chains of command. If Lee did accept Lincoln's offer, I suspect the war would have been a lot shorter than the 5 or 6 years it went; and a lot less bloody. McCellan was a runner, not a fighter. Integrated leadership goes without saying.

I know slightly more about civil war logistics than David Letterman. Are you certain this function was very integrated, or did each individual army and militia have to provide for their own? I suspect alot of it was the later, especially on the South side. I suspect the logistics people were merged as the armies grew in size and were grouped together. Although I don't know for certain.

I had friends who do Civil War reenactments and I recall them telling me that the individuals soldiers of the era had to provide all their own clothing, boots and initial supplies. Don't recall on who provided the guns, probably a mix. They started Confederate, so the clothing issue may be specific to the South. All I know is that wearing wool, which they did, is quite itchy.

299 posted on 01/06/2006 7:38:21 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
I know slightly more about civil war logistics than David Letterman.

Then why do you post about civil war logistics? David doesn't.

300 posted on 01/06/2006 7:43:36 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 501-539 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson