Civil war erupts over Confederate handbags

DFW ^ | January 6, 2006 | JIM DOUGLAS

[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

[stand watie]

the central government of the CSA had LITTLE to say about what the state militia, partisan ranger & privately-raised regiments did/did not do. MOST black volunteers were NOT in CSA-raised units.

AND the CSA needed troops too badly to ask too many questions. that's the TRUTHFUL answer.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the north "held the high moral ground" in 1861 in the same way that the USSR "held the high ground" in the Winter War.

while both the union & USSR won the war, LIBERTY lost.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

THANKS! you are one of a multitude.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

have you read BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY???

you should.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

you can say that again!

that's one reason that First Manassas was "a mess".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

i played against Lee in 1964.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

NOPE. what IS lunatic is that you've swallowed the DY propaganda on this subject, "hook, line & sinker".

in point of fact, 18-20% of the TOTAL CSA forces may have been "other than white" (per Prof. Jim Ranchino, late of the University of WI), including Blacks,Indians, Latinos, mixed-bloods,etc.

peddle your propaganda elsewhere.

free dixie,sw

[Heyworth]

I haven't seen such drumbeat and wouldn't condone it. What master plan? I've not seen such posts.

You must not read enough of these threads. How often have I read that the was all about oppressing the south? That Lincoln maneuvered the south into firing at Sumter to that he could grab power? Here, in post #111 of this thread, is a typical example: "It was a war of envy, a war to increase federal power (which had it's roots in Jacksonianism) and a war to protect northern industry at the expense of Southern industy."

Then, of course, there's Watie's frequent allusion to the Union soldiers as "the filth that flowed from the north"

[Heyworth]

in point of fact, 18-20% of the TOTAL CSA forces may have been "other than white" (per Prof. Jim Ranchino, late of the University of WI), including Blacks,Indians, Latinos, mixed-bloods,etc.

You can't say "hello" without it containing a lie, can you? Jim Ranchino was a professor at Ouachita Baptist University in the 1960s and 70s, whose area of expertise was political polling analysis.

[groanup]

I think post number 111 is pointing out what I started pointing out on these threads 4 years ago (yes I have been on the WBTS threads that long), and that is, that the North didn't fight to free slaves, far from it. There were a handful of abolitionists in New England as far as I can tell and that was about it.

The North fought to preserve the Union (and tariffs btw) while the South fought for free and independent states. Slavery was an issue but not the only issue. The quotes and actions of Southerners, including generals and commoners are peppered with pro slavery diction. But if you look long enough you'll also find anti slavers among those dedicated to fighting the North (Lee, Hampton). If slavery was such an issue then those leaders who welcomed the end of it would have been pariahs and such statements would have been blasphemy.

Sorta like me saying "well, Ted Kennedy isn't so bad".

[Pelayo]

If the consitution guarantees you certain rights that not even the state is allowed to remove, then secession is in effect removing you from the protections guaranteed under the bill of rights.

Except that the Constitution is a compact between the various states and the Federal Government, in which in exchange for alliance with that government both parties agree to certain restrictions of authority. However, make no mistake, regardless of whether the original mechanizations for ratification of the Constitution were legal or not according the the Articles of Confederation, the fact that all states ratified the document prove de facto and de jure that the Constitution did need to be unanimously accepted.

[TexConfederate1861]

If it is done by popular vote, I suppose they will have to move. I agree, Mass. could do us a favor IF they secede :)

[TexConfederate1861]

My learned friend:

Just because it is a "Pro-Southern" Website, it doesn't mean the webmaster is a liar. Southerners are big on honor, and truthfulness. I personally have no reason to doubt the truth of it, until it is proved otherwise.

One can be proud of our past, and love the South, and still love his country!

[Heyworth]

I'm not disagreeing with you for the most part. The Union did not go to war to free slaves. It went to war to preserve the Union and because the South had fired on Sumter. But that's not the same as saying that it was fought because of "envy" or "to increase federal power" or to "protect northern industry at the expense of southern industry" or even tariffs. There are no recruiting posters in the north that talk about imposing tariffs to protect northern industry.

And while you might be correct that there were only a handful of hardcore abolitionists, there was a widespread distaste for slavery and a desire to see it contained. The Republican Party's 1860 platform talked extensively about slavery. Their electoral success in the northern and midwestern states gives lie to the idea that northerners didn't care about it. The further fact that the south was endlessly complaining about northern opposition to slavery, specifically in failing to (in their minds) enforce fugitive slave laws, must necessarily mean that there was opposition to slavery and, more specifically, a dislike of being compelled to be complicit in maintaining it.

[groanup]

Point taken. My resentment is about the new educational trend that the North went to war to end slavery and the South went to war to perpetuate it.

Robert E. Lee's Opinion Regarding Slavery

This letter was written by Lee in response to a speech given by then President Pierce.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.

How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

[Pelayo]

TexConfederate1861:I agree, Mass. could do us a favor IF they secede :)

They almost did, look up info on the Hartford Convention. The principle nullification was accepted by those Yankees at least, though as one would expect it was over their objection to a war.

[Casloy]

I never called any of those websites liars. They are taking information they believe to be correct and siting it. My issue is, there is no source for the information so I think it is likely this, like so much other stuff we believe to be true, is simply being quoted over and over again without anyone really knowing if it is true or not. I have no doubt websites promoting opposite views are doing the same thing.

[Casloy]

If it is done by popular vote, I suppose they will have to move.

Nope, rights protected under the constitution cannot be taken away by popular vote. You can't censor a newspaper or outlaw a religion just because the majority votes to do so.

[Casloy]

in point of fact, 18-20% of the TOTAL CSA forces may have been "other than white" (per Prof. Jim Ranchino, late of the University of WI

If the best you can do is cite some obscure professor then I suspect your data is weak. Further, other than white does not mean black. Besides, your quote is "may" have been. You are really, really scraping the barrel here. Do you honestly want to claim that there were 90,000 blacks wearing the confederate uniform?

[x]

Wise was quoted as saying that if Fremont had been elected in 1856 an army of 20,000 men would have converged on the capitol to prevent the inauguration. But of course, Fremont couldn't have won.

The Democrats were united and assured of the South, the Border States (except Maryland, which went for Fillmore), Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, and Illinois. Southern Democrats wanted their shot at power and weren't going to waste it.

If Fremont had shown more signs of winning, secession talk would have been louder, and if he'd won, there might well have been a secession in 1856.

In 1850-1 there was a lot of talk about secession. I would surmise that it failed because neither party was anti-slavery, Calhoun and Clay were still alive, and the country had just passed through a victorious and unifying war, rather than six or ten years of sectional conflict.

You needed a run-up to rebellion. Enough Southerners had to feel that they'd exhausted alternative approaches before they would take such a radical step.

In 1860, by contrast, Southern Democrats split their party, ensuring the election of a Republican, an event which could serve as a pretext for secession. What was going on there?

Clearly John Brown was a factor, but I doubt one could say he was the main one. He was something demagogues could use to scare voters, but politicians had a pretty clear assessment of what was going on, and weren't so easily cowed themselves.

To be sure, there was fear in the South in the days leading up to war, but there was also a great enthusiasm for taking a revolutionary step. Those who believe in the Southern version of victim history leave that out of their accounts.

Also, I doubt Republicans "winked and nodded" at Brown. That's the sort of claim that people love to make then or now about this party or that, but when you look at the record there's usually less to such allegations than people want to believe.