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

[stand watie]

NOPE. they didn't.

a GREAT many got ZILCH from the Richmond government stores/uniform depots.

my ancestor, PVT William James (Little Thunder) Freeman, late of the 1st Mounted Cherokee Rifles & the 4th Missouri Partisan Rangers, was armed with a 13-Guage (NOT a misprint), double barreled, British-made, sporting-pattern, shotgun for most of the WBTS. he took it with him to war in April 1861 brought it home with him in June 1865. (fwiw, my cousin Beverly still owns it.) and, as far as i can tell from his letters to his mother/sister/aunt, he never was issued a uniform either.

for most of the western & trans-misississippi theaters, there was NOTHING but HONOR, DUTY, DEVOTION to family/tribe/state/CSA/Almighty God & "make do".

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

before you make yourself look SILLY, may i suggest that you read "BLACKS IN BLUE & GRAY" by the well-known professor Blackerby, published by Portals Press of Tuskegee University.

furthermore, KY (the only dixie state that separated her CSA pensioners by race/color. nobody seems to know WHY Kentucky chose to do that, when no other state did.) had >20% of their CSA pensioners who were black. one would presume that the percentage of other dixie states pensioners were no different in ethnicity.

SORRY, but you are WRONG on this issue. try some other tack.

free dixie,sw

[M. Espinola]

I am sure nobody will be offended if you and the other neo-confederates in here want to parade around with a confederate handbag. Don't be surprised if people start to talk & do some double takes :)

[Melas]

Now you've done it. The rabid confederate wannbes are gonna be all over you now. Watch for phrases like "War of Northern Agression.".

[Melas]

But I am like anyone else, I want my grandchildren to look like me.

Interesting. How deep does this desire for resemblance go? Would it disturb you if your grandchildren had different hair or eye color than you, or is this solely limited to pigment?

[Casloy]

Before you make yourself look silly, stop trying to deny the reality of what slavery was all about. Please spare me the revisionist history that is meant to excuse slavery through a total twisting of history. The overwhelming number of blacks who served for the confederacy did so by force. At the battle of the crater at Petersburg black soldiers trying to surrender were murdered by Confederate soldiers because they couldn't stand the sight of a black man in uniform. During exchanges of prisoners the confederates would not consider black union soldiers as soldiers in one to one exchanges. As late as 1864 when Patrick Cleburne suggested using blacks as soldiers, the response was decidedly negative; so much so that Davis actively attempted to block Cleburne's proposal from seeing the light of day. Now, I ask you, why were those debates being held if there were already so many blacks fighting for the South. You know, if I dig long enough I can find evidence there was no jewish genocide by Hitler, but that has to stand up against all the other evidence. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by arguing that Blacks served as volunteer confederate soldiers in any number that would be considered more than token. This silly claim that Blacks volunteered in numbers to fight for the south has but one source, a few Southerners intent on re-writing history so as to play down or ignore slavery. For every single bit of primary source material you can find to support your case, I can find thousand of documents that totally refute it. Furthermore, there is simply no logic to the claim 30,000 blacks volunteered to risk their lives to keep themselves in servitude. Hundreds of thousands crossed over Union lines to gain their freedom, how is it you ignore that little fact.

[groanup]

How deep does this desire for resemblance go? Would it disturb you if your grandchildren had different hair or eye color than you, or is this solely limited to pigment?

I'm partial to green and/or hazel eyes. But I'll settle to whatever my children and grandchildren give me - and that includes pigment.

[M. Espinola]

The neo-confederate revisionists on FR also love spreading the preposterous lie that "well over 100.000 Southern blacks fought willingly for the Southern cause" of the Confederate insurrectionists, which if I am not mistaken had something to do with maintaining slavery as the main instrument of Cotton Inc's economic system of forced labour - or else.

[Diplomat]

Please read my Post #292. I was seeking debate and got that and a lot of good info about the war. I used to paint/mount and game the Civil War with lead minatures as a kid. I love the history and the gaming.

Please accept my apology and note that I do not personally believe any of these folks, on either side, we're traitors. It's a very complex and important period of our history that should never be forgotten. It also demonstrates that the USAs most dangerously enemy is likely to always be itself.

Have a great week you two.

[LexBaird]

too bad you aren't very good at it and don't even have the virtue of being entertaining.

free dixie,sw

Amazing. You got through a whole sentence without using your caps key.

[tkathy]

Revisionism and denial go hand in hand. Once these people face up to the truth, hopefully they can forgive, forget and move on to things that really matter.

[Non-Sequitur]

But that wasn't my point. I wasn't arguing that the South wasn't in a bad way on account of it's institution of slavery, what I was angry about was the ever present Yankee sense of moral superiority that has been carefully crafted ever since the war.

But not too angry to lay the lion's share of the blame on the Yankee importers.

[jaguaretype]

"But I am like anyone else, I want my grandchildren to look like me."

Amazing ain't it? Some of these types don't go as far as the banned "nolu chan" in revealing their persona, but just go back and do a searching in older posts....it always slips out.

FWIW with regard to the original posting subject, I think it is WRONG entirely to stop these girls from wearing the flag.....I think someone early on in the first posts of this thread said it best when that person noted that the idiots that have the "F@@@ Bush" t-shirts in school are protected in their 1st Amend rights while others are not.

I feel funny actually being on the side of he people I intensely dislike (stand watie, cowboyway, etc..) but IMO it is the only correct position for this Conservative.

[x]

The standard seems to be whether the statement clothing makes will expression will "create a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or will invade the rights of others."

So the federal courts have allowed a student in West Virginia to wear Confederate flag clothing to school and forbidden it in an Indiana district. In the first case, there wasn't much tension in the school and African-American students weren't offended. In the second case, the rule barring such clothing was adopted because of conflicts and disruptions at the school.

The big case was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969) and involved students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. It looks like schools won't be able to ban political speech at least until the country is as divided as it was over Vietnam, but if the school does have a hard and fast rule against wearing clothes with obscenities written on them it could probably disallow a shirt with obscenities about the President printed on it.

[x]

Most people did not consider themselves so much as U.S. Citizens as Citizens of their state. Both north and south.

I don't think that's right. When we went to war with Britain (1812) or Mexico (1846) most Americans clearly did think of themselves as citizens of the United States. People sometimes underestimate the patriotism and nationalism of 19th century Americans. In times of sectional conflict, some Americans might come to think of themselves as primarily citizens of their state, but that doesn't seem to have been the norm. Lee had sworn allegiance to the United States, not to Virginia, and he had long believed secession unconstitutional. He shouldn't have been so quick to change his loyalties.

[jaguaretype]

You've done your homework and thanks for the case cite.

In my common sense world, even in a controlled environment (read public school) dissent or controversy ought to be allowed unconditionally as the 1st is applied (I am aware of the common restrictions on Amend #1 as to pornography etc...).

So specific to this issue I don't agree with school districts suppressing any activity that is not to the direct detriment of student safety.

If one is offended, then turn away as I don't believe the perceived rights of the offendee overrule the rights of the offender.

But I'm not a judge so my opinion holds weight with my family and my pets:)

[Pelayo]

I wasn't lay'n blame on ANYONE. I was point'n out a vary real disassociation from reality on the part of most Yankees who actually believe that the north invaded the south to free the slaves. That particular ref to the Atlantic slave trade as an argument against the display of the ANV flag is particularly irritating. It's like everyone really believes Yankees never had a investment in the slave trade. If the Cartoon had maybe depicted a scene from a plantation (I think perhaps the point could have been made real well with the crosshatching welts produced by a bull whip, contrasted with the flag), or an auction block, that at least would be pertinent. But a slave ship? Come on, that just plane ignorant. It's like that analogy about the drug addict been foolish to blame the dealer, that came up a little bit ago. Yeah it is foolish, but not as irritat'n as the dealer act'n all morally superior.

[Non-Sequitur]

Most people did not consider themselves so much as U.S. Citizens as Citizens of their state.

Many people did.

"Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." -- George Washington, 1796

[Pelayo]

El Gato: Most people did not consider themselves so much as U.S. Citizens as Citizens of their state.

Non-Sequitur: Many people did...

I do think there is a cultural divide vis-a-vis loyalty to the land you live on. Hell, recently I had this difference demonstrated to me while I was complain'n about the local weather, and the fact that for the longest time the Detroit area had no classical station on the radio. I wasn't really bitch'n much, but I felt, since I was with some friends who were native, that I should addendum my diatribe by reassuring them that I do have an affection for this area, and a loyalty to Michigan. As I explained, one shouldn't disparage the land from which one has drawn sustenance (particularly apples, I love apples, and the many apple cider mills), and other sentimental reasonings. It was bullcrap I guess, and I knew that when I said it, but I still believe it at least in part. But to the people I was talking to, it was just bullcrap. “You shouldn't have to feel any loyalty to where you live. You can't be bound to a piece of land, you are more then that,” was basically the answer I got. Irony is, they were try'n to console me, and tell me it was ok if I don't like the land, since it's just a piece of land.

[John_Taylor_of_Caroline]

"The overwhelming issues which divided the north from the south in the years preceding the Civil War were about expansion of slavery into the new territories. Without slavery there would have been no civil war."

It might be just as accurate to say that without violent anti-slavery, there would have been no war.
The inclusion of violent anti-slavery means had changed the debate over the latter 1850's. Anthony Burns (et al.), Bleeding Kansas, Harper's Ferry, the public mourning of John Brown and the suspicious fires in Texas in the summer of 1860 all combined to import ominous meaning to the election of a Republican to the White House in 1860.
The election of 1860 was seen by a significant number of Southerners as a referendum on the violent means adopted by the more radical wing of the Republican party. Indeed, John A. Andrew, Republican candidate for governor and John Brown's volunteer defense attorney declared, on the night of Brown's execution, "This (Harper's Ferry) is the eternal and heaven sustained nature of the irrepressible conflict." Andrew was elected in the same election that took Abraham Lincoln to the White House. Here was a Republican, trying to establish a link between Harper's Ferry and Republican policy. And he was elected to the Governor's office after making that statement.

If not for these violent means, I would wager that the election of Abraham Lincoln would have been viewed by most Southerners as undesirable, but not the end of the world (or the Union). I don't believe there was a credible threat to secede if Fremont had won in 1856 (although, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong).