Civil war erupts over Confederate handbags

DFW ^ | January 6, 2006 | JIM DOUGLAS

[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

[El Gato]

You're like saying someone is 'a little bit pregnant.'

No, I'm saying it not a Good Idea, to compare Robert E. Lee to Adolph Hitler.

[old republic]

I see seeds of truth in both arguments. Slavery was the catalyst on which the Southern States could no longer tolerate encroachment by the Federal government. They had according to Mississippi's declaration of secession more than 4 billion of money at stake. The federal government's encroachment on slavery represents a conflict of state's rights vs federal power. Thus you are both right. Slavery causes the war because government regulation of it against the will of the states threatens states rights.

Georgia's declaration of secession in its entirety emphasizes that the conflict is over states rights and slavery is the issue which has created the conflict of interest. The declaration says:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them.


The State of South Carolina's declaration makes it even clearer that the Southern States are concerned that the Federal Government will use slavery to violate States Rights. This declaration says:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

If anyone is interested in seeing these declarations in their entirety they can go to:
Georgia
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

South Carolina
http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

[El Gato]

As you assert, the military back then was still operating under the original design of the Constitution. Everything was organized individually by the States themselves, into state militias. Hence, nearly every unit that fought on both sides of the war had their state of origin in their name. This decentralized military is probably one of the reasons why the war got so bloody as they were no integrated (not black-white, I mean between States) units in the military and it was extremely difficult for each side to accept or even acknowledge the legitimate differences and problems that did exist in the country between the different states.

This just wasn't true, although it was somewhat more true of the South than the North. Yes units were raised in the various states, and often officered by men from the those states. But in the Union army at least, they were completely integrated. Supply, chain of command, everything. Except at first perhaps, since at that point the units were indeed state militia units, and the Union Army was just not prepared to properly integrate them.

Much the same was true in the South, although it lasted longer, and logistics wise, the Confederate Army never did get completely integrated.

Not being prepared for any war, let alone the next one, is an old American tradition, not fully broken until about 1990, and it will return, probably sooner rather than later. It's demise started with having no choice but to be prepared, at least for the SIOP war. (AKA Globabl Thermonuclear War..toe to toe with the Ruskis)

[groanup]

Should a T-shirt stating "If your great-grandfather was a Confederate, you're a descendant traitor."

What a ridiculous statement. You are one of the reasons I ever deign to join these discussions. You infer that my ancestor was a traitor. He was never thought of that way immediately after the war nor in the intervening years until revisionists like you suddenly come along. If these men were traitors why are there Federal military installations named after them? Naval ships?

A banner that was accepted for 140 years as a symbol of a struggle for state's rights-not only here but internationally as well- which flies over the graves of thousands of brave men, is now compared to a t-shirt calling one's ancestor a traitor.

You are so far in left field that you're under the bleachers. sheesh.

[El Gato]

Unfortunately for them, they never legally seperated.

Says who? Lincoln?

But as long as we are talking legalities, what of the secession of West Virgina from Virgina? The Constitution says no state shall be formed from the territory of an existing state, without the permission of its legislature. Now you would have it that Virginia and the other states of the Confederacy never legally seceded, Lincoln said there was no way they could do so. But it can't be both ways, if the states never seceded, then Virginia was a state, and West Virginia should have been restored to it after the war. And if the states never seceded, why did they have to petition for readmission to the Union? That process was strung out over several years, July of 1866 to July of 1870.

The Union, and particularly those who took over after the assassination of Lincoln, had it both ways. The states were considered to have no longer been in the Union when that was convenient, and their citizens to have been citizens of the US, and thus traitors and rebels, when that was convenient.

I would point out that the greatest "traitors" of all, at least in some peoples eyes, The President of the Confederacy, the members of it's Legislature, and it's senior military officers, were never even formally accused of treason, let alone convicted of it. In fact no one was. Only the commander of the Andersonville prison was charged with "war crimes". The Constitution of the United States was amended to prevent them, the former Confederates, from taking part in government ever again, but many of them did, with permission as provided for in the 14th amendment. That includes participation in the Spanish American War.

This country today would be screwed if the South wasn't still a part of us. This is why I'm most glad they lost.

Yes in the long run it was a Good Thing. But even better would have been for the North not to have forced the issue and let slavery die the natural death it was already headed for. And for the Federal Government to have stayed within the bounds set by the Constitution. There could have been many Constitutional, and peaceful, ways to eliminate slavery, if that were what President Lincoln was really about.

[old republic]

Unfortunately for them, they never legally seperated.

On what grounds do you make this claim? This debate has never been resolved. Several of our founding fathers supported the idea of nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Also if the States never legally separated then why were they denied representation in Congress after the Civil War? What was with the charade of Congress "readmitting" the southern states to the Union if they never left it. Many of the things done by Congress during the Era of Reconstruction were patently unconstitutional. For example, even after the President declared that the states were once again in full communion with the union (the president believed that the states had never left the union) the Congress didn't agree. The Congress refused to admit Southern Representatives after elections and proceeded to pass Constitutional amendments. Congress behavior on this is strange because it said they were not legally part of the union, yet it still submitted the proposed constitutional amendments to the Southern States for ratification. When the Southern States refused, the Congress passed the Reconstructions Acts dissolving the state legislatures and placing the South under Martial Law until they ratified the 14th amendment. If the Southern states had not legally separated why would congress submit the amendments to them for ratification? In fact, Several of the Northern states were so incensed by the Federal governments heavy handed tactics that they rescinded their ratifications of the 14th amendment. The federal government chose to ignore these rescissions and continued to count them. The Reconstruction is a Dark Period in the history of the Republic and force is an illegitimate way to amend the Constitution. In favor of your argument the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1868)that secession was unconstitutional.

Thus at the end of the Civil War you have an interesting scenario. The President and the Supreme Court say that the South had never seceded, while Congress sent mixed messages on the issue. The Congress submitted constitutional amendments to them while later saying they had left the union and Congress voted gradually to readmit them as they ratified the 14th amendment. As you can see this is a complicated period in American history that we still haven't come to terms with.

[Diplomat]

You infer that my ancestor was a traitor.

Awwwwwwww. Poor little you gets offended because someone HYPOTHISISES a situation where a student comes to the same school mentioned in this article with a shirt accusing Confederates of being traitors.

If you had an ounce intellectual honesty, you'd be able to comprehend that this is EXACTLY analagous to a black parent/student seeing the Confederate flag and viewing it entirely as a symbol of slavery and oppression.

Given your reaction, I'm betting you're incapable of making this comparison.

However, you should be able to conclude that other people are just as incapable of viewing the Confederate flag as a 140 year old symbol of the struggle for States rights.

[avile]

You raise an excellant point. I have always wondered how the cessation of W. virginia was legal.

[Nasty McPhilthy]

Thanks for the pings

[wardaddy]

You can kiss this descendent of traitor's ass, buttwipe.

[LexBaird]

You raise an excellant point. I have always wondered how the cessation of W. virginia was legal.

Essentially, the rump delegation of representatives from Virginia that remained loyal to the Union were recognized as her legitimate congressmen. As they were from the NE area of Virginia, they issued the permission required by the Constitution, and since they were the only VA reps in congress, they got their way.

[Diplomat]

You could actually try reading and understanding my ENTIRE posts before you resort to name calling.

[wardaddy]

South bashers don't deserve nuance.

As a white guy I'm offended by X, nearly all Rap, almost all black leaders since Booker T except Clarence Thomas and a few pundits

....but that doesn't stop black kids or wannabes from wearing that crap or listening to it or questionable black leaders being lionized and I just have to deal with that

same as they OUGHT to have to....contrary to conventional wisdom, they aren't special

[PMCarey]

Slavery was the catalyst on which the Southern States could no longer tolerate encroachment by the Federal government. - from the Georgian declaration

In what way were the rights of Georgia encroached upon? Had the Federal government attempted to outlaw slavery? No. Indeed, Lincoln promised not to do anything about slavery in the states in which it resided. And of course, Lincoln had not even taken office when that Georgian declaration was written and the previous administrations were all hospital to the institution of slavery. Douglas's popular sovereignty was an attempt to allow slavery's spread.

The problem really came down to this: Lincoln and many in the North wanted the expansion of slavery halted with the hopes that with its containment it would eventually wither on the vine. The South wanted to see slavery expanded into the territories in the belief that that would strengthen their political power and safeguard slavery in perpetuity.

Let me say one thing more. The true test of Democracy is how people respond when they lose an election. Do they react with respect and acceptance towards the democratic institutions or do they react in anger and bullets? Lincoln was elected fairly and constitutionally. The South did not wait to see what Lincoln would actually do as President; instead they declared themselves independent. Why? The bottom line is they seceded because they lost an election.

So much for their high ideals.

[Non-Sequitur]

Abraham Lincoln also wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa which is an interesting slant on the Great Emancipator.

So did Robert Lee, John Breckenridge, James Monroe, etc., etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln was not the hero he was painted to be, that's for sure.

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." -- Robert Lee, January 1865.

And Lee was?

[Non-Sequitur]

The truth is not pretty and not as simple as you would like for it to be.

"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." -- Jefferson Davis, March 1861

I guess not.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

More accurately, the war was about a group of states that didn't like the outcome of a constitutionally valid election, and they wanted to take their ball and go home. Petty, childish, and in the end, tragic.

If the results weren't so tragic for so many people on both sides of the conflict, the arrogant, ignorant pretensions of the Confederate secessionists would be worth a lot of laughs. What a pitiful and inept gang and like you say, history provides few examples of such shortsighted petulant childishness.

[Trajan88]

Believe Burleson High School's mascot is an elk?

In light of this "issue," it would have been interesting if they were the Redskins, or Indians, or some other non-pc group.

[rebelyell]

Yes, R.E. Lee was a hero. Do you suggest otherwise?