Confederate flag salute in program upsets parents

The Nashville Tennessean ^ | May 14, 2003 | LARRY MCCORMACK

[WhiskeyPapa]

Confederate flag salute in program upsets parents

LARRY MCCORMACK / STAFF

Parents of some students at Avery Trace Middle School in Cookeville are upset because a history program by re-enactors included a salute to the Confederate flag.

By LEON ALLIGOOD

Staff Writer

COOKEVILLE, Tenn. — A program presented by a local camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans last Friday at Avery Trace Middle School has angered parents because students were asked to stand and listen to a recitation of a salute to the Confederate flag.

''My son told me something happened at school. I couldn't have imagined it would be anything like this,'' said Diane Paul, whose son attends the school. She asked that his name not be disclosed.

Paul also said the speakers promoted ''revisionist attitudes'' of the Civil War, particularly in regard to slavery.

The program by members of the Dillard-Judd Camp 1828 was similar to one they had presented last year for seventh- and eighth-grade American history classes at the middle school. The members, many of whom are active Civil War re-enactors, came dressed in period Confederate costumes to show the students what life was like during the 1860s.

According to Alma Anderson, the history teacher who organized the event, having the members come to the school offered a chance to ''make history come alive'' for her students.

Anderson said Friday's program began with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, for which students were asked to stand. Afterward, the teacher said, her eighth-graders were asked to remain standing for a salute to the Confederate flag.

''They explained they were going to salute not the Confederate States of America but to salute the thought of the folks who served in the Confederacy,'' Anderson said, adding that students were not required to salute. Neither were they provided the words of the salute.

''They were just to stand respectfully. You're not pledging. You're not saying anything. You're just standing there with respect,'' she said.

Diane Paul, however, said the re-enactors went too far when they asked her son to remain standing in honor of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. ''He knew it felt wrong, but he was there with his whole class, all these kids. No one wants to say anything,'' Paul said.

Anderson said no student or parent has complained to her about the program. She said that after the program, her students had a question-and-answer session with the group members. There were no questions about the salute, she said.

''If somebody had been upset, surely they could have come to me,'' Anderson added.

In contrast, she said, one parent thanked her for making the Civil War so interesting to her child.

In addition, Anderson said, Director of Schools Michael Martin attended the presentation. Martin could not be reached for comment.

Paul said she was troubled by ''revisionist attitudes'' of the Civil War that she said were promoted by the members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

''My son was told that a lot of black slaves liked their masters very much and that many blacks wore the Gray. There's a grain of truth there, but there were reasons why they were true. The whole answer wasn't given.

''What answers were given were distorted, and it's the distortion that disturbs me,'' the Cookeville mother said.

''The whole thing was minimizing slavery.''

Reavis Mitchell, chairman of the Fisk University History Department, said a few blacks did own slaves, as well as members of the Pequot Native American tribe in New England.

''Anyone who could buy slaves owned them, but the predominate owners were white,'' Mitchell said. ''However, most Southerners didn't own slaves because slaves were very expensive. What people don't understand is that slavery kept most people poor. However, their dream was to own them or have their children own them. They've identified with a social and economic quest that the great majority of today's South was not historically a part of.''

Anderson denied that the speakers revised Civil War history.

She said the group's commander, Ed Butler, pointed out that some people had made the Confederate flag a racist symbol.

''But it is not a symbol of racism for the Dillard-Judd group. He made that very clear. He said there's no way anybody on this stage is going to say to you that slavery and what we did to the blacks were appropriate.''

Butler, who lives in Cookeville, could not be reached for comment.

Allen Sullivant, spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans' national office, which is in Columbia, Tenn., said the school programs are a local initiative aimed at giving students a glimpse into the mindset of a Confederate soldier.

''We try to give historic presentations to schools that are willing to do it,'' said Sullivant, who lives in Brentwood.

Typically, a few members dressed in period uniform bring artifacts and speak about the life of the average Confederate soldier and his motivation to fight.

Sullivant said the presentations emphasize the complexity of issues such as slavery and the Civil War. ''People tend to boil things down, and sometimes they boil it to a point that the truth is taken out of the situation or distorted.''

Anderson said she would have preferred to have had Confederate and Union re-enactors talk to her students, but she said she could not find any Union ''soldiers'' in the Cookeville area.

''If I could find a Union re-enactor, I'd be all over that person like a duck on a June bug.''

Paul said she and several other parents, who would not talk to The Tennessean on the record, would schedule a meeting with Principal Skip Overstreet and Director Martin.

''We want our concerns to be heard. I think there's a need for dialogue on the issue,'' Paul said.

Staff writer Margo Rivers contributed to this report.

[4mycountry]

>>>you'd best watch your step and take care not to offend anyone

Too late for that....

[wardaddy]

History re-enactment Wlat...take a Xanax...

[WhiskeyPapa]

You forgot this part:

"This is fine if it is a well written, well researched, and well documented piece on a newsworthy and topical event."

Most of the neo-confederate threads that are posted on FR are neither well researched or well documented.

The people that post them, and the people who take the most umbrage at what -I- say are not interested in well researched and well documented newsworthy topical events. They are interested in pursuing an agenda that is Anti-american and ahistorical.

Walt

[Colt .45]

'Most of the neo-confederate threads that are posted on FR are neither well researched or well documented.'

I beg to differ with you!

' The people that post them, and the people who take the most umbrage at what -I- say are not interested in well researched and well documented newsworthy topical events. They are interested in pursuing an agenda that is Anti-american and ahistorical.'

No Wlat, it is you who is being Anti-American and ahistorical and anal retentive by your strident rhetoric which only allows for one point of view. If t doesn't worship Lincoln, and think that the Southern Confederates were the lowest life form on earth, then in your view it isn't worth printing. Everything I have ever quoted to you came from well researched and well documented sources written by well educated men! You however, want only the ill-educated to be able to post on here so you can foist your skewed views upon them. ITS YOU, Walt who is the one who's being un-American as the Founders' gave us Freedom of Speech and Expression in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. To monopolize speech and expression by only allowing one form is not .... REPEAT NOT ... FREEDOM! Perhaps it is you sir (and I say that most questioningly) who should go and study up on the ideals upon which this great nation was founded.

[billbears]

BattleCry of Freedom, P. 855 by James McPherson

That says it all Walt. You mean James McPherson who interviews with the World Socialist Web Site and supported Clinton? That James McPherson? You might as well start posting crap from Sandburg if you're going to use anything from McPherson as something besides wiping paper. So let's begin with the basic premise, shall we?

but the rebels had no major success outside of Virginia throughout the entire war excepting Chickamauga.

General Braxton Bragg, now in command of Confederate forces in the theater, was not going to stand on the defensive, but was determined to go over to offensive operations to recover both Tennessee and Kentucky for the Confederacy. The campaign began favorably as Confederate forces in East Tennessee, under the control of General Kirby Smith and in cooperation with Bragg, moved north into Kentucky with 12,000 troops. At Richmond, Kentucky they met, on August 30, a command of 7,000 new Federal recruits defending the city. In a one-sided victory, Smith's casualties numbered only about 450 while the Federals lost 206 killed, 844 wounded, and 4,303 captured or missing. Lexington, Kentucky was captured by Smith's forces, unopposed, the following day.

On September 13, Bragg had reached Glasgow, Kentucky which placed him between Buell, now at Bowling Green, and Smith in Lexington. Bragg's forces moved north to the Green River and forced the surrender of another 4,000 man Federal garrison at Munfordville.

Buell advanced his forces again northward to Louisville, and then began a movement to the southeast towards Bragg's suspected location. The two armies eventually stumbled into each other outside Perryville, Kentucky on October 8, 1862. Bragg, who was outnumbered three-to-one, but did not think so at the time, ordered an attack by Hardee and Polk. This assault routed the Federal Left Wing under General McCook. On the opposite flank, Joe Wheeler's 1,200 Confederate cavalry managed to immobilize Crittenden's corps of 22,500 Federal troops in an impressive performance. When the battle closed at the end of the day with no decisive results however, Bragg decided to retreat southward. Buell's pursuit was unenthusiastic, and Bragg arrived back in Knoxville on October 22. Lincoln was unhappy with the turn of events and on October 24, ordered Buell to turn over his command to Major General Rosecrans.

Guess Jimmy Mac missed that battle huh?

Confederate War in the West

Notably, I admit the fall of the Confederates in the West, however as this author, and many non-Socialist authors, point out it wasn't so clear and dry as Jimmy Mac would have the koolaid drinkers to believe.

Bragg's use of the railroads, not only for logistic support, but for dramatic and unexpected troop movement, re-gained the initiative for the South in the western theater. He used that initiative to march northward into Tennessee, and then into Kentucky, at about the same time that Lee was crossing the Potomac into Maryland on the Antietam campaign.

Bragg's campaign nearly reached the Ohio River. It ended at the Battle of Perryville in October, where Bragg was forced to retreat back into Middle Tennessee at Murfreesboro. Still, it is evident that this dramatic and unprecedented use of the railroad to move an army across four states had changed the pattern of the war in the West

Guess Jimmy Mac missed all those battles too as well huh? Seriously Walt, Jimmy needs to quit giving interviews to Socialist websites and hit the books.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Perryville was a Union victory.

That is just weird -- you touting this battle as....I don't know what.

Check also where the beginning of McPherson's text begins in the note you responded to.

The rebels had NO major success outside Viginia except Chickamauga throughout the entire war.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Richmond, KENTUCKY? Well, there you go.

If the Yankees had 206 KIA and the rebels had 450 casualties -- let's say they had @ 100 KIA. Then you are talking about a battle with @ 300 KIA. Hardly a major battle. Also, the rebels wound up vacating Kentucy. Some triumph.

It also seems to have escaped you that rebel forces INVADED Kentucky after KY attempted to remain neutral.

So much for states' rights.

Walt

[billbears]

I realize it was a union victory Walt. And that's exactly what the documentation states. However, I would not define failure as the ability to almost reach the Ohio River by rail. Well, that is, unless we're talking about the ability of the union forces to stop the Confederates until Perryville

[billbears]

At Richmond, Kentucky they met, on August 30, a command of 7,000 new Federal recruits defending the city. In a one-sided victory, Smith's casualties numbered only about 450 while the Federals lost 206 killed, 844 wounded, and 4,303 captured or missing. Lexington, Kentucky was captured by Smith's forces, unopposed, the following day.

You're right, doesn't sound like a major success to me either. More like a resounding success

[billbears]

The North had a potential manpower superiority of more than three to one (counting only white men) and Union armed forces had an actual superiority of two to one during most of the war. In economic resources and logistical capacity the northern advantage was even greater. Thus, in this explanation, the Confederacy fought against overwhelming odds; its defeat was inevitable.....Given the advantages of fighting on the defensive in its own territory with interior lines in which stalemate would be victory against a foe who must invade, conquer, occupy, and destroy the capacity to resist, the odds faced by the South were not formidable.

You know being of two minds is really starting to hurt Jimmy Mac. Either the defeat was inevitable or it wasn't. The Socialist can't even make up his mind. And the examples he gives to supposedly compare the Confederates to is beyond a joke. In every instance, the forces invading (and by this it seems the Socialist is willing to admit the north was an invasion force) were far away from home soil. Just how far were the union forces away from home soil Walt? A day? Maybe two in most instances? It's a bit harder to fight someone that can resupply in a week or less than someone who, in the instances provided, was weeks (in the instances of the US and the Spanish), even months (in the instance of the British) away from their homeland. Unless they were planning to use the Jimmy Mac travel home device that he must believe in to even make a comparison

[DeathfromBelow]

Why the hell not WLAT, they let the NEA do it.

[DeathfromBelow]

The non-historical crap That WALT passes off as history needs to be exposed for the hate rant that it is.

Walt you are one of the most hateful and if Southern was a race, racist person to ever post to this forum.

[donmeaker]

I love the song "Dixie". It was written in New York.

[donmeaker]

I suppose that you don't recall the strikes on the USS Stark? Launched by a Iraqi F-1. Killed 17 as I remember.

So: Was that a "plot to kill Americans" by your definition?

[donmeaker]

The tyrant who was fought was Jeff Davis. The oppressive states were South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland.

That southern soldiers didn't own slaves, well, they were slaves, subject to the draft from day 1.

Your anger with Lincoln rests with the fact that he won two elections, and two wars. The tyrant, Jeff Davis, never got around to appointing his Supreme Court for it would have hindered his autocratic rule. Alas, Father Abraham was shot by one of your partisans before he could show you additional kindness. You can't blame reconstruction on him.

[donmeaker]

The tyrant who was fought was Jeff Davis. The oppressive states were South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland.

That southern soldiers didn't own slaves, well, they were slaves, subject to the draft from day 1.

Your anger with Lincoln rests with the fact that he won two elections, and two wars. The tyrant, Jeff Davis, never got around to appointing his Supreme Court for it would have hindered his autocratic rule. Alas, Father Abraham was shot by one of your partisans before he could show you additional kindness. You can't blame reconstruction on him.

[donmeaker]

My wife is at least half southern. Of course the other half is African. I can at least blame the least likeable part of her character on her rapist-ancestors.

[billbears]

That southern soldiers didn't own slaves, well, they were slaves, subject to the draft from day 1.

and of course you won't have evidence of this, but I've found with the yankee supporters, evidence doesn't matter. The draft in the Confederate States did not happen on day one. Many of my ancestors I've found just went to the nearest town, joined up with some other men, and went off to fight the invaders

The tyrant, Jeff Davis, never got around to appointing his Supreme Court for it would have hindered his autocratic rule

Well that lie has been blown to bits, want to try again? The fact is our nation was being invaded. Let's see, fight off the invaders first, and then establish the government, or finish establishing all parts of the government, and let the war just take care of itself? How did the Founding Fathers do it?

Alas, Father Abraham was shot by one of your partisans before he could show you additional kindness

Father Abraham?!? McPhernut, is that you? My anger rests with the tyrant in that he chose to ignore parts of the Constitution all to save the union.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The U.S.S. Adams hit a mine in that same time frame. What's your point?

Walt

[donmeaker]

What were the name of the Confederate Supreme court Justices? If they didn't have any then they didnt nave any.

"Our nation" didnt exist. It was a rebellion, in contravention of the constitution. The south could not accept that the Republicans won the election. Rather than file suit, the South raised an army. That army was their sole claim to legitmacy. When that army was destroyed, and the traitors killed or arrested, there still was no legal attempt to file suit. All agreed, that force had settled the issue. The slaves in the rebellious states were free, and could not be reinslaved. That was the end of a horrific way of life. The world is better for it. The cost was high, and could have been lowered at any time by ending the rebellion. Gosh those folks were, and are stubborn.

Of course, the United States continued with the Supreme Court. I don't see how you can fault Lincoln for not following the constitution that Jeff Davis opposed. If Jeff Davis was right, then both he and Lincoln were correct to ignore it. If Lincoln was right, then he who obeyed it most closely was right. The only other notion is that Lincoln should have been bound by every jot and title, while the Confederates were not bound by even the Articles of War, not having agreed to them as a nation. So, given evil and worse evil, you support worse evil? Duh!