Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
Last month, Ithaca High School administrators sent a letter home with students, informing their parents that the flag of the Confederacy had been banned. Ithaca High School students can no longer display the emblem on belt buckles, t-shirts, or anywhere else while on school property. Apparently, the students wearing their Dixie Outfitters t-shirts, in a proud nod to our country’s better half, were white. It is unfortunate that civil liberties apply only to those in privileged groups, such as blacks or Hispanics.
Because the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of protecting the freedom of speech exercised in displaying the stars and bars, Ithaca High School had to claim that the flag was creating some sort of disruption in the school that hindered the educational process. No specific instances were mentioned in the administration’s letter.
I found the claim interesting, though, because, were it true, it would clearly indicate that racism is much more of a problem in Upstate New York than in my hometown in Southern Virginia. To think that racial hatred could be stirred up by a high school student’s belt buckle is frightening, indeed. The school’s objection to the battle flag is even more astonishing considering the fact that only 6.7% of the population of Ithaca is black. But apparently the race wars here are far more intense than in my hometown, of which 13.34% of the population was black. And yet, in my public high school, where displays of the confederate flag were common on car bumpers, t-shirts, or belt buckles, and where a significant minority of the student body was black, and even in a state that historically had supported slavery, the flag was never accused of disturbing a classroom, much less of inciting racial hatred.
Ithaca’s black population is proportionately only slightly more than half that of the United States. This is an unusually white city. And apparently race relations here are in such tension that they can be upset by a kid’s t-shirt. Schools in the South, much less segregated, are clearly more at ease and have put issues of racism farther behind them;thus, students there can better appreciate the historic and cultural value of the Confederate flag. It leads one to wonder on which side of the Mason-Dixon Line racism is still prevalent today.
The Confederate flag is not—and was never—a representation of the institution of slavery. The North, in an attempt to glorify its states’ fight to suppress the South’s effort to free themselves from the North’s exploitation, has oversimplified and at times even falsified history by painting the War of Northern Aggression as a war fought over issues of morality. Children in Northern schools are never made aware that there were no more abolitionists in the North than in the South.They are never taught that the North never claimed to want to abolish slavery but merely to stop its expansion to ensure that the free states would not be outnumbered in Congress. Many Northerners do no even know that the majority of Southerners who fought and died in the Civil War did not even own slaves.
In accordance with their favored depiction of the Civil War as a moral battle in which they fought for good while the South defended evil, the North has emphasized the issue of slavery while allowing the issues of representation in national politics, economics, and regional identities which primarily caused the war to recede into the background. Erased from history are the values of self-government, freedom, and honor that led Confederates to fight to preserve their home. This is what the Confederate flag represents, and this is why it is still of the utmost importance to Southerners today. It is why black Southerners will proudly call themselves Southern and will fly the Confederate flag. The South is, above all, a cultural entity. Southerners have a dramatically different culture from Northerners; this culture of chivalry, modesty, graciousness, and hospitality is represented by the stars and bars, and it must be remembered and preserved.
If the Confederate flag has in fact caused the feelings of ill will in Ithaca High School that the administration claims, the blame must fall on the administration itself. No Southerner would be so naive as to equate the Confederate flag with support of slavery. It is a failure of Yankee schools that children are not taught the broad scope of economic, political, and even cultural factors which led to the Civil War but are only presented with a gross caricature of a war between good and evil.
Even more frightening than this restriction of freedom of speech in Ithaca High School is what has caused this common misunderstanding of the Confederate flag. In perpetuating their myth of the North as the force of good in the Civil War, the North has revised history in a way that should frighten all Americans. An emblem of a group of people’s heritage and culture has been banned because others have formed prejudices and misconceptions about it. Moreover, these prejudices and misconceptions are fueled by the public school system itself. By banning the Confederate flag, the state attempts to erase from memory the Civil War. To forget that Americans in the past were capable of such atrocities as slavery robs us of the lesson that can be learned and leaves us dangerously vulnerable to repeating past mistakes.
If the Confederate flag calls to mind slavery, and schools wish to erase from common memory all remnants of this dark period in American history, why stop at the flag? Perhaps next, Ithaca parents will receive letters requesting that their children be sent to school clothed in only synthetic fabrics because cotton was once produced through the slave labor of blacks. Or, in order to really be free of uncomfortable memories of our national history, maybe Ithaca High School will ban all black students from school property.
BUT did you get the other messages about the war to FREE the south????:
1.the WAR was NOT about slavery or the preservation thereof.
2. you have been LIED TO & made a FOOL of, IF you believe the KNOWING lies out of the DY spin machine.
3.hardly ANYONE north or south "cared a damn" about the slaves or what the slaves felt. it simply was NOT "an issue of interest" to any but the relatively few slavers & a handful of abolitionists.
4. the war was ONLY because lincoln, the TYRANT & shyster lawyer, was UNWILLING to have PEACE. from his viewpoint, the war was ONLY about $$$$$$$$$$ and POLITICAL POWER. he cared NOTHING for the "plight of the slaves", period. end of story. (he said so himself!) fwiw, lincoln's own writings illustrate that he was a stone RACIST, who feared & hated "persons of colour" (especially "muddy-coloured people, like me for instance, as a mixed-blood).
free dixie,sw
Why not?
"Those powers not delegated... nor prohibited... are reserved to the states..." The Constitution need not allow anything. If it is not explicitly prohibited, it is retained.
That's OK. I enjoy a good debate. I define "a good debate" as one in which everyone sticks to the issues and nobody calls each other names. ;-)
Of course not. However, that leaves a lot of time in between. A state does not appear from nothing - it must already be some type of political entity in order to make application for statehood in the first place!
Applying for statehood is a voluntary act. In other words, a state is created by the people therein, not by Washington, D.C. Anything else would be annexation - a hallmark of empire.
And where do you find the word 'explicitly' anywhere in that amendment? Or the Constitution itself for that matter? Chief Justice Marshall stated, "But there is no phrase in the instrument [Constitution] which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument...A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably, never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."
Congressional approval is required for a state to be admitted. It is required if an existing state wants to split in two. It is required for two or more states to combine into a single state, removing one or more states from the Union in the process. Congressional approval is needed for a state to change its borders by a fraction of an inch. It does not take much imagination to realize that if the consent of Congress is needed for admission to the Union in the first place and for any subsequent changes, then by implication it should be needed for leaving the Union as well.
Explicit or not, is was not prohibited.
And if you have to resort to quoting an activist judge to make a point, it helps make mine! LOL!
In your opinion. Others, including 5 Supreme Court justices, disagree with you. You'll forgive me if I accept their opinions of the Constitution as more valid and legally binding than yours?
And if you have to resort to quoting an activist judge to make a point, it helps make mine! LOL!
All it does it reinforce the fact that you have offered not a single shred of evidence to support your claim that unilateral secession is constitutionally protected. Like it or not, agree or not, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not and that's the way it will remain unless the Constitution is amended or Texas v White is overturned by a future court.
Well. Thank you very much. That's exactly why Lincoln led the north to war. It wasn't about slavery. Lincoln didn't give a damn about blacks.
But indulge me this:
Let's say that the majority of the people state of Alabama wanted to allow a Christian symbol such as, the Ten Commandant's, to be displayed on state property. They know this because a state referendum passed by a landslide.
The atheist say, "This ain't right," and file a lawsuit that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court says, "You can't do that, Alabama," and cites a precedent from a court case in New York.
The good people of Alabama say, "We don't care what the godless heathens of New York do. We're good Christian folks down here and we're going to display the Ten Commandments at every court house in the state."
Feds say, "No you ain't."
Alabamians say, "We'll secede!"
Feds say, "We'll invade."
Alabamians say, "We'll fight back."
Now I ask you, mon sequitur, is this battle over states rights or is this a Holy Crusade?
The South initiated the war when they fired on Sumter and bombarded it for 36 hours.
Now I ask you, mon sequitur, is this battle over states rights or is this a Holy Crusade?
States rights end when the actions violate the U.S. Constitution. Alabama cannot legalize slavery regardless of public opinion because the 13th Amendment forbids it. It cannot proclaim itself a hereditary kingdom with you as Prince Cowboyway I, Governor for Life, regardless of public opinion, because Article IV forbids it. It cannot place a tax on items coming in to the state from Louisiana because Article I forbids it and so on and so on. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, regardless of public opinion.
James Madison posed the question, "Who is it who cannot see that the same who would consecrate Christianity above all other religions would then have to consecrate a particular sect of Christians above all other sects?" By posting a version of the 10 Commandments followed by some religions and not by others, the state is indeed placing some religions above other in it's eyes, and is establishing one religion over another. That's why monuments like Roy's rock have been declared unconstitutional while other portrayals of the 10 Commandments as tablets with numbers are not. So no, it's not a state's rights issue, it's a Constitutional issue.
Indeed it does. And what it has to be is an organized territory--and that organization is done by authority of congress, not the people. In practice, what happens is that the United States acquires land through purchase or cession or whatever. Congress authorizes a territorial government to form with very limited powers--ultimate sovereignty at that time resides with the federal government. Eventually, and after meeting certain criteria (like population), the territory asks permission to write a state constitution and apply to join the Union. Neither is assured by the federal government, and the writing of a state constitution doesn't mean that the territory has now become a state. It becomes a state only when it is admitted to the union.
Kind of like what Parliament allowed us to have before we seceded from Britain, eh?
If you are free to ignore it, you are free.
And you have not shown any Constitutional text which prohibits it as required in the 10th Amendment!
And if, God forbid, the supreme law of the land is amended, through legal channels, to replace the president, congress and judiciary with a dictator, should we, the huddled masses, quake in our boots and live under the yoke of tyranny?
That is what I'm hearing you say.
We did not secede from England. We rebelled under the Natural Right of Rebellion. The Founding Fathers had no illusion that what they were doing was legal or that England would simply say, "You know, you're right. Go in peace." They knew they'd be hanged if the rebellion failed. It's often been said on these boards that no one begrudges the south their Natural Right to rebel. As Lincoln said in the Mexican War speech, anyone who can rebel, may. If, tomorrow, all the illegal aliens in the US rose up and tried to seize the country, that would be their natural right. Of course it would also be the natural right of everyone else to fight against them, and it would be illegal under the Constitiution. Same with the south. If you want to say that you rebelled, no argument. If you want to say that you did not, in fact, rebel, that you exercised rights guaranteed under the Constitution, I would argue otherwise.
Either that or rebel, overthrow the tyrannical government and corrupted Constitution and start again, just like we did in the Revolution.
free dixie,sw
and it will be something like that, i predict, that will change the "war of words" between the yanks/rebs and set the spark that breaks out into GUNFIRE again.
i once thought it would be the MURDER of countless MILLIONS of the UNborn. i was wrong.
free dixie,sw
Here is the decision from Texas v White The Chief Justice references the Preamble and, indirectly, Article IV.
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.