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 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.
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.