Skip to comments.Civil war erupts over Confederate handbags
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
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.
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).
"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.
No apology needed. I shouldn't have been so short and I am sorry if I came off a bit snooty.
No, not at all. Don't worry about it.
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)
So you find it amusing that northern soldiers raped southern women and burned Atlanta? No wonder you watch the Beverly Hillbillies.
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.
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.
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:
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.
No, I'm saying it not a Good Idea, to compare Robert E. Lee to Adolph Hitler.
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)
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.
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.
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.
You raise an excellant point. I have always wondered how the cessation of W. virginia was legal.
Thanks for the pings
You can kiss this descendent of traitor's ass, buttwipe.
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.
You could actually try reading and understanding my ENTIRE posts before you resort to name calling.
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
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.
So did Robert Lee, John Breckenridge, James Monroe, etc., etc.
"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?
"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.
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.
In light of this "issue," it would have been interesting if they were the Redskins, or Indians, or some other non-pc group.
Yes, R.E. Lee was a hero. Do you suggest otherwise?
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?
What southern industry?
Or the rest of the world for that matter.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
But he did own slaves, as many as 9 at a single time.
Depends on ones point of view, doesn't it?
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.
Well, that was only their condition before the war. After it started, they all got a gray uniform and a rifle.
Once again, the courts give an incentive to people to be hyper-sensitive so that they can promote their viewpoint and exclude others' views.
Drop the smiley face and I'd agree with you.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
Then why do you post about civil war logistics? David doesn't.