Posted on 02/10/2007 3:04:28 PM PST by Stoat
By Martha Deller
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)
DALLAS - Two Burleson High School students filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the Burleson school district over a year-old incident in which school officials denied them the right to carry Confederate battle flag purses to school.
Attorneys for the Southern Legal Resource Center prepared the lawsuit on behalf of Aubrie Michelle McAllum and Ashley Paige Thomas, who contend their constitutional rights were violated in January 2006 when school officials prevented them from carrying their new purses to school.
The teens were not punished for carrying the purses, but were sent home when they refused to turn them over. They were also told not to bring them to school again. The next day, when they returned to school with the purses wrapped in black cloth marked "censored," they were again sent home.
The lawsuit alleges that the district selectively applied the dress code by singling out the Confederate flag for exclusion while permitting students to wear other controversial symbols, including the swastika.
After a lengthy appeals process in which the girls' attorneys attempted to get the district to lift the ban on the flag attire, the federal lawsuit is seeking a declaration that the girls' rights were violated, removal of any disciplinary action from their records and unspecified monetary damages.
The suit names high school principal Paul Cash as well as school trustees.
Great. Now you can read how sloppy and myopic the author was. The Real Lincoln -Rebuttal
Referring to the conflict as the "War Between the States" is a relatively neutral way to describe accurately the conflict. If you want to give the unionists a taste of their own medicine refer to the conflict as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War for Southern Independence." These monikers are the Southern equivalents of calling the conflict the "Civil War."
The official name of the war in Northern records was "the War of the Rebellion." "The Civil War" was a big concession to Southern feelings. And indeed, if you were living in Kentucky or Missouri, that war was very much a "civil war" that pitted brother against brother, father against son for control of your state.
I guess if you really believe that we became two countries overnight, you'd object to calling the 1861-1865 war the "Civil War." But "War Between the States" is also awkward. States weren't fighting against other states. Rather, two large federations composed of states fought against each other (with a variety of guerrillas and freebooters also involved).
Wartime Confederate terminology reflected this. It was the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America," not a war betwen Mississippi and Alabama, Maine and New Hampshire. Calling it the "War Between the States" leaves out those bums in Montgomery or Richmond who started the mess to begin with.
"The War of Southern Independence may be a "Southern equivalents of calling the conflict the "Civil War." "The War of the Secession" is another possibility. The "War of Northern Aggression" isn't. It's a lot worse, more biased and inaccurate than "the Civil War," which may contain assumptions you don't agree with, but which doesn't demonize the other party.
I can't think of one thing that might make me want to visit the Lone Star State. But having said that, if the people there want to plaster the confederate flag on everything that they own then for God's sake let them! It's not my bag they want to stick it on. I don't have to look at it. It's nobody's business but the owner.
Considering that Southern politicians and Southern states exerted a disproportionate level of influence over our government in the 80-odd years leading up to the Southern rebellion, then if we were disolving into tyranny it was most likely Southerners leading us there.
The northern mercantilists were more than willing to toss aside the strictures of limited government in general and the Constitution in particular in order to better service their own interests.
And just how, pray tell, were they doing that?
...when in fact it was a war over the true definition of freedom for white and black alike.
Well, in the case of the South for about 2/3rds of the population anyway.
As you wish. So long as you don't mind that I apply the more correct label of "War of Southern Rebellion."
Wasn't "The Real Lincoln" great! I love a good fiction, especially when it's funny, too.
Take it up with Robert E. Lee, who wrote, "Secession is nothing but revolution," and James Madison, who wrote that "secession...is another name only for revolution."
|
Nothing particularly negative in that, unless you want read something into it. It's just a simple statement of fact. There is nothing I can think of that would make me want to go to Texas. I have no family there, no reason to want to visit. I work for an international company headquartered in Plano but I work remote and have never needed to go the corporate HQ. In all my travels I've set foot in Texas twice, once in the Dallas airport and once in Houston. That fact neither gladdens me or saddens me, it's just what it is.
Who took it up with Lincoln, and I'll take it up with you.
Secession indeed was revolution. But it was not "insurrection" or "rebellion". There was no higher authority than the People, and the People do not "rebel", because they are Sovereign.
Bite me, fascist.
As long as it didn't grind the People down. Liberty was their first concern, and the happiness of the People. How many Jefferson quotes will it take, to remind you?
Secession and the expansion of slavery were radical ideas .....
They were not. Secession was revolution, and the Founders were expert at it. Slavery was ancient, even Biblical.
......which would have changed our continent as much as anything Lincoln did.
Simply not true. Lincoln extended slavery to cover all the States -- slavery to the owners of the Union. To-wit, Lincoln's political machine, and his political heirs.
Partisan propaganda -- as partisan as the regime in the North was. As the arrests of dozens of newspapermen, which are on the public record, attest.
"The Civil War" was a big concession to Southern feelings.
Then take it back. Don't mind us. We don't mind you.
And indeed, if you were living in Kentucky or Missouri, that war was very much a "civil war" that pitted brother against brother, father against son for control of your state.
And if you lived anywhere south of Missouri or Kentucky, it was a pretty straightforward military invasion by a tyrant-adventurer.
Calling it the "War Between the States" leaves out those bums in Montgomery or Richmond who started the mess to begin with.
Jefferson Davis was a better gentleman than anyone on this board would ever try to be. Alexander Stephens and Judah Benjamin fall somewhere outside the casually abusive category of "bums", too. And this from an apologist for the cause of Benjamin "Spoons" Butler.
Let's just compromise and call it what it really was........"Lincoln's War".
If someone can't see the incredible harm that rolling over for the green-eyed propagandists of the 'Rat party does to the conservative cause, every time they bust ugly on conservatives, then that person is part of the problem.
You don't resign an argument just because the other side gets ugly about it. Never concede an argument that has merit. You only fold when you realize you were wrong to begin with -- thus Winston Churchill -- but never, ever, when you were, and are, right.
Don't be a trimmer. Everyone smells the gutlessness, and they know to despise it. That's why RiNO's always lose.
Ping.
Oh barf.
Let's just compromise and call it what it really was........"Lincoln's War".
That would be wrong. War of the Southern Rebellion is far more accurate.
Of course it isn't. But then, you knew that.
Lincoln's War it is.
On the contrary. Rebellion is, by definition, an open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance to an established government. That is a completely accurate description of the Southern actions right down to the 'unsuccessful' part.
Lincoln's War it is.
Or, considering the complaint frequently heard around here that Lincoln tricked the rebel forces into firing, how about "The War That Was Lincoln's Fault Because We Were So Stupid We Fell Into His Trap"?
Then why does the constitution make allowances for suppressing insurrections if, according to your take on it, it's impossible for insurrections to occur?
If the whole People revolutionize their Government, then they cannot be said to have "rebelled" against their creature.
The key is whether the entire People is involved or represented. In 1861, the Southern States withdrew from the Union by either constitutional conventions, or plebiscites ratifying ordinances of secession proposed in constitutional convention, or both. Arkansas is the exception: there, secession was proclaimed by the Arkansas legislature, which enactment fails the test of constitutionality and falls short of a Sovereign act. So Arkansas may be said legalistically to have "rebelled".
Insurrection is certified to the U.S. Congress, or to the President of the U.S., by either the legislature or by the governor of a State affected. No certification, no rebellion. That is why Abraham Lincoln solicited an appeal to the U.S. Government for troops from Gov. Sam Houston of Texas. Lincoln knew, as everyone did, that Houston was a Union man -- one of those Unionists who'd put up John Bell for President against Breckinridge; many of the biggest planters were also Unionists. But Houston refused to turn on his own people and wouldn't certify insurrection. He couldn't: the entire People had spoken, and Texas was out of the Union.
Salmon P. Chase's lies about it afterward notwithstanding.
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.