Posted on 10/05/2006 1:21:53 PM PDT by Route797
Marion County teen defies ban on Confederate flag clothing
By CHRISTOPHER CURRY
Ocala Star-Banner October 05. 2006 6:01AM
OCALA - A student at North Marion High School is opposing a ban on clothing that displays the Confederate battle flag.
On Monday, sophomore April Brenay, 15, began to circulate a petition among students urging that the school do away with the dress code policy banning clothing with the Confederate flag. On Wednesday, Brenay wore a Dixie Outfitters-brand shirt with a Confederate flag on the back and the message: "If this flag offends you, you need a history lesson."
Brenay said school officials intercepted her in the courtyard before school and brought her to the disciplinary office. She said she was there for more than four hours until her mother picked her up.
Marion County School District spokesman Kevin Christian confirmed one North Marion student was sent to the office for wearing clothing with the Confederate flag on it.
"It's not accepted by the principal and the administration, and the students know that," he said.
Christian said the student was kept in the office after declining to turn the clothing inside out before returning to class.
The flag is addressed as No. 10 in the North Marion High dress code: "The wearing of or displaying of Confederate (rebel) flags is prohibited."
In 2003, when another student protested the ban, a School District official said individual schools can ban symbols considered disruptive or offensive.
To some, the flag is a symbol of Southern heritage. For others, it is a reminder of slavery and has racist overtones.
Brenay believes it is a piece of her Southern heritage and she should be allowed to display it, just as other students may wear clothing with the flag of the countries to which they trace their heritage. Her mother, Karen Brenay, agrees.
"If you are from the South, it is your heritage," she said. "It is not a black/white issue with me. It is censorship."
In Kentucky, there have been court decisions saying a public school student has a right under the First Amendment to wear clothing with the Confederate flag on it. In 2001, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of Castorina v. Madison County Schools that two students should have been allowed to wear Hank Williams Jr. concert shirts with the Confederate flag on them.
In another case, Jacqueline Duty v. Russell Independent School District, the school district settled out of court and paid damages to a woman who was not allowed to wear a dress designed to look like a Confederate flag to the high school prom, said Roger McCredie, executive director of the Southern Legal Resource Center.
McCredie's organization, which advocates to defend the right to express Confederate heritage, was part of the legal team for both plaintiffs.
"Absent of any proof of disruption in the school, the students cannot be banned from wearing depictions of the Confederate flag," McCredie said.
"That is the law of the land in the Sixth Circuit."
But that was very much the perception of Southern slaveowners when secession was voted. Republican victory was interpreted as being the beginning of the end for slavery. The most militant slaveowners decided that they couldn't accept that and decided to leave. And by the end of the war, it very much was a war against slavery.
It was the end as long as they stayed in the Union. However, it was not the only or even primary reason for leaving. The South could have left peacefully if allowed. And, as most Constitutional scholars at the time stated, it was their right to leave. By force you will stay? That was what was fought about some 90 years earlier. In fact, Calhoun resigned from VP and immediately after his impassioned speeches on the Senate floor, South Carolina began building a military force. This force was not for agressive action, but for defensive means and talk of secession was rampant due to the imbalance of power and the economic issues. This occurred in the late in the 1830s. Before 1824, the tariff rates were at 15-20% and were shown to more than meet revenue needs of the federal gov't. As you said, aims change over time. Even the emancipation stance was not intended so much to end slavery as much as it was a means to an end to garner British and other overseas support. By this time the South and North knew that the abolition of slavery would be a result of the war, but not the reason for it. I agree that aims and goals change over time. Especially in 1863.
I guess the idea is that high tariffs are somehow illegitimate -- for the Rockwellites it sometimes sounds like protectionism is worse than slavery -- but that goes too far. Even limited government Southern Jeffersonians like Madison and Monroe supported high tariffs in the 1810s. They wouldn't have if they felt protective tariffs were inherently wrong.
And if the tariff was so important to Southern political elites, they would have made it, rather than slavery the centerpiece of their political platform, which they didn't. I'm not saying the Morrill tariff was a good thing, just that it was a sideshow to what was going on politically in the 1860s.
Not that they are illegitimate, just that when you have such an overwhelming burden on one group, class, or region, sooner or later there's going to be problems. And in the extent to which it was during this time--major problems. Even Beard in the 1820s was warning about the problems that seemed to be stirring between the regions due to the economic differences. Yes, they did support tariffs. However, the did not support any provision that encouraged regional schism and they reiterated their call that the Union is made up of states voluntarily. The wanted infrastructure and growth but more than anything they wanted cooperation among the states. This is time and again presented in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Later in his career, Madison would block calls for high tariffs due to the increasing burden he saw being placed on the South.
Southern politicians did make the economic issues central to their platforms. If you look back at the Congressional and Senatorial debates and addresses, the overwhelming issues were 1) economic differences, and 2) the increase in centralized power. The Morrill tariff and tariffs in general were the main focus of debate during most floor meetings as well as campaign faceoffs.
But the big changes didn't come along until later, when activist judges got power.
But the pathway for these big changes was provided with what happened immediately before, during, and after the war. If I have long term goals in mind, I may not accomplish them today, but I work toward accumulating the necessary resources and means to eventually meet my goals (which by the way may be ever expanding). http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=346
Congress had the option of drafting the 10th Amendment to forbid the Congress and federal government from exercising any powers other than those that had been "expressly" granted to it. Congress didn't go that route. Consequently it was hard to figure out just what the amendment meant.
And this conflict goes back to the very beginning. If Congress had the right to establish a postal service, it also had the power to set up pensions for postal employees and improve roads for the mails. And if it had the power to coin money, it took the right to print currency and charter banks as part of that power. So just what the amendment allowed and what it forbade isn't entirely clear.
The Constitutional Convention had the option, not Congress. Congress didn't convene until March 4th 1789. Yes, Congress has the ability to do certain things such as oversee mail and establish money and monetary denominations. However, the power of Congress has since well overstepped the boundaries of the original framers. The issue here is the Commerce Clause Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 which Congress has invoked time and again to assert control over things from interstate trade to cars to guns. The question is, does the 9th and 10th amendments mean anything? The answer is of course they do. The founders didn't just put them in there for looks or to get to an even number of 10. Its interesting that most every time, with a few exceptions such as certain cases (most involving these activist judges) in the New Deal and some others, that the commerce clause has won out in the balance of power tipping to the federal gov't thus rendering, in effect, the 9th and 10th amendments void--again, all results of an overbearing and intrusive government.
I think you may find such claims are more propaganda than fact. They're based on the assumption that 1) the Cotton South provided most of the exports, and 2) therefore must have payed most of the import taxes. I don't know about the first claim, but the problem with the second is that Southerners bought things from the North and had money invested in the North. Northerners then used the funds they earned from that commerce to buy things from abroad.
The population of the North was larger, so there would have been more Northern consumers. Also, the purchase of large capital goods like locomotives or power looms by Northerners has to be taken into account.
Southern writers and politicians 1) didn't consider such purchases and the taxes Northerners would have paid on them, 2) didn't take into account the goods and services they would have bought from Northerners which enabled Northerners to buy exports, and 3) thought of agriculture as the "true basis" of the economy so that Northern manufacturing didn't have to be taken into account.
Could be, only problem is that it is backed up by Treasury Department Records of 1859. It is a compilation of duties collected from Southern customs houses and ports, along with what was collected in the North. Sure they had money invested in the North, but they had a heck of alot more invested in overseas markets, especially Britian. In fact if taken separately, the trade revenues were larger between the South and G.B. than the South and the North multiple years. Their free trade market intesive trade network was what the South thrived on in the arena of finished goods. The fact that the population of the North being double what the South was is well taken. Even though the population of the North was double what the South's was, this was the case. It validates those that wrote about "exploitation." Even if they're not right, this still lends quite a bit of credibility to their musings. The problem with these purchases in the mix is that there were huge susidies for manufacturing and railroad interests. That is where much of these revenues went. The South did provide most of the exports (around 80%).
I don't think tariffs were a legitimate cause for secession. Tarriffs were a Constitutional measure, passed by Constitutional methods. There was no bad faith or breaking the compact there. There's nothing in the Constitution that stated all the legal actions under the Constitution would be to the liking of the slave interest. Nor was there anything in that document stating the Southern states would forever hold the balance of national power as they had in the early years.
From 1789 to 1861, the southern states had just as many rights as the northern states. More, if you count the fugitive slave legislation. The rebs, like spoiled children, didn't like it because they saw the era of preferential treatment ending.
They needed the North in the early years for national defense. Later they had the silly notion that their little slave empire rated nationhood.
Our US Army corrected that little bit of Dixie ignorance.
Yes Suh!
Well, I believe it wasn't just the tariffs. It was so much deeper than that. From my readings I believe the thinking was do we stay in the Union and get raked over the coals or do we leave and take our chances. But, the North saying we're gonna make you stay by force? That is what was fought about not even 100 years earlier. But lets say today, the government passed a tax law that taxed the North at a 75% tax rate (graduated of course based on income cause that's how they do it--punish the successful), it doesn't affect any other region, but the lowest income homes start out at 75% and then Congress came up with a name for it. Counstitutional? Yes. And if not, the way things are today, who the hecks gonna oppose it? Sure, there would be problems sooner or later; as far as it being justified? Well, to those not affected by it, maybe. But, hopefully everyone would say "hey, this isn't right." That's doubtful at best, though. It would be great to be able to have the Federalists and Anti-Federalists debate today on this issue. It would, I believe, be most interesting. I agree that they would affirm the Constutionality of the process, but have major issues with the regional effects of the policies enacted with the iteration of the rights of the independent states. I believe also that if they saw what the Federal Gov't has evolved into, they would have a conniption.
The interesting thing to me about the fugitive slave legislation was that so many Northern states supported it and adopted measures of their own to support it.
I don't believe it would have been termed an 'empire.' Confederacy best applies, kinda like the Articles of 'Confederation' because it was a loosely joined coalition of states, even though its constitution was almost exactly word for word from the U.S. Constitution. The British, if they had won, could've easily said the same about us...you ingrates needed our military for your defense, our trade routes to reach the world, and our organized form of government to run your pathetic lives, and now you have the grandiose idea that you have the ability to run your own affairs? And, without help from France and the inability of the British Navy to reinforce its army, we likely would've had a different outcome. NOt to get off topic, but an interesting sidenote...the English Channel froze over that year blocking the ships from leaving port..the only time in recorded history it has done that. So, maybe some help from somewhere else???? Just a thought.
What is surprising is that the army of the Confederacy took the Union army to task. In terms of hardware, manpower, and depth, when reviewing the stats (this from Dr. Tilley my military history professor, of course this was 11 years ago) the North should've wiped the South out in a matter of months if not weeks. Talk about an underdog. It was like a Piper Cub going up against an F15 Strike Eagle. However, if Chuck Yeager's flying the Cub and Helen Thomas is flying the F15, could make for an interesting dog fight. The leadership was beyond excellent in the South, somewhat wanting in the North. As far as means to an end with the numbers lost and the bloodshed endured, I don't believe either side has room to talk much. But, then again, that's war. And, as General MacArthur stated "There is no substitute for victory." But, it turned out the way it did. And, that in retrospect is at least militarily a good thing for the U.S. Certain things may be debatable, but it is a sureity that the geographical South has turned out some formidable soldiers and Generals.
here, you were referring to actions taken by the House and Senate after the Marbury/Madison case..my apologies. Thanks!
here you were referring to the actions of the House and Senate after Marbury/Madison, my apologies..Thanks!
Constitutional? No. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
What is surprising is that the army of the Confederacy took the Union army to task. In terms of hardware, manpower, and depth, when reviewing the stats (this from Dr. Tilley my military history professor, of course this was 11 years ago) the North should've wiped the South out in a matter of months if not weeks.
Why? In 1861 the standing U.S. Army was about 15,000 men, less once the desertion of Southerners is factored in. The U.S. had no massive arms industry or trained militia. The U.S. had to build its army, virtually from scratch, just as the confederacy did so it's not surprising that it took time. But as it built up its strength it inflicted defeat after defeat on the confederacy until it the confederacy's inevitable defeat.
And, of course, you have quotes from him showing that?
free dixie,sw
SORRY, but nobody here is THAT dumb. free dixie,sw
just thought you's want to KNOW that obviously Dr. King wasn't a "flag-HATER", as MANY DAMNyankees are!
free dixie,sw
> sell all the folks of the U.S. down the river games being played by ALL of the politicians
An ironic turn of phrase coming from someone who defends those who killed their fellow man in order to permanently legally enshrine the *industry* of selling people down the river.
you are being RIDICULED as i write these words. IF you're not very careful, i won't be the only one on FR who is laughing AT you.
why not head over to DU??? those DUNCES will be EASY for you to convince of your SILLY opinions.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you!
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
PITY that you aren't smart enough to know that.
free dixie,sw
Caps-Lock is not your friend.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
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.