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
I, on the other hand, don't appreciate the constant drumbeat that my two great-great-great grandfathers who fought with Illinois regiments--one of them losing a leg--were dupes of some yankee master plan to bring the south under their boot.
Kind of funny how you jump in here obviously not noting that I stated my agreement in an earlier posting that these girls SHOULD be able to wear the Stars and Bars.
Are you even aware of what this thread was (WAS) about?
But I do note your "neoconfed" citation.....as though that is objective in nature:)
No more of my time for you neomom.....It is about the Wattage involved. LOL!
They were convinced that they were rebels when they opened fire on the US flag at Fort Sumter.
It's very telling though, that even with Lincoln assasinated by a Southerner, no Southerner was tried for treason, not even Jefferson Davis and the other political leaders.
What it's telling of was the decision that it was more important to "bind up the nation's wounds" than exact vengeance. You guys are always confusing mercy with justification.
Me thinks the parents were itching for a lawsuit...right?
The Confederate government had at least two good reasons to avoid officially doing it. 1) Fear that once armed, they could not be disarmed. thus not likely to return to slavery after the war. And possibly a bad situation with rebel black units running around. And, 2) officially signing up blacks could lead to an internal conflict between radical pro-slavery parties, and the rest of the South, as civil-war inside a civil-war as it were.
And he made it clear just how wrong those opinions were.
Well, thank you.
Seems to me that FrouFrou is simply parroting the same thing I've been hearing lib/Democrats say for the past 40 years.
In fact, many lib/Dems profess no gratuity whatsoever, and instead seem mad because they still consider blacks to be living under the "slavery" of Republican leaders.
Go figure.
I haven't seen such drumbeat and wouldn't condone it. What master plan? I've not seen such posts.
Welcome.
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?
How about the northerners reaction after the Civil War. The fourteenth amendment is an amendment which has broadly expanded the power of the the federal government. Its ratification is an affront to American democracy and did great violence to the principles of liberty and free government. A few examples of why this is so are cited by Patrick Henry Olmor in his book the Phantom Fourteenth.
" On December 4, 1865, in undeniable violation of the Constitution (Sections 2 and 3 of Article I and Article V), eighty legally elected delegates from the eleven Confederate States were excluded from their rightful seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate by means of the brazen, unheard-of machination of simply refusing to call their names and allow them to be seated. Thereafter, all the proceedings of that unconstitutional "39th Congress" (as well as the subsequent "40th Congress") were null and void, being the doings of bogus "legislators" who lacked valid lawmaking power.
2.
On June 13, 1866, the joint resolution of "Congress" proposing the "Fourteenth Amendment" was therefore null and void. Since this first requirement for the adoption of an amendment was not fulfilled, the subsequent requirement that it be ratified by three-fourths of the States did not, in reality, come into play. However, copies of it were submitted to the thirty-six States, including the eleven Confederate States, for ratification or rejection.
3.
On January 25, 1867, a joint resolution rejecting the "Fourteenth Amendment" was passed in the Mississippi legislature. By making its adoption now mathematically impossible, this tenth rejection by a State killed the amendment just 6½ months after its submission to the States.
4.
On July 21, 1868, "Congress" passed a mere concurrent resolution falsely declaring the "Fourteenth Amendment" was ratified by the required number of States. Falling far short of the necessary twenty-seven, only eighteen States had validly ratified it at the time. Of importance here is the fact that concurrent resolutions, unlike joint resolutions, have no legal effect whatsoever. The "Fourteenth Amendment" was officially "adopted" on July 28, 1868, on the strength of a legally impotent concurrent resolution that once and for all surrendered all legal justification for its existence."
That would be Curtis LeMay. Hap Arnold was Chief of the Army Air Forces. LeMay was the commander of the Army Air Force units in the theater. The decision was his, although it was later ratified by Arnold and the Joint Chiefs.
Not really. The Confederate supply system was abysmal. They often wore parts of captured Union uniforms, and uniforms weren't, well uniform, on either side. Some Union units had gray uniforms, and some Confederate units had blue ones. Both sides had many other colors and styles of uniforms as well. It was a hell of a mess, especially in the first couple of years.
I see you're from Texas, which Lee did you attend?
The supply was never fully integrated in the Confederate army. It was much more so for the Union Army, except as I said at the beginning of the war.
Command and control however was pretty much integrated on both sides from the beginning, slightly less so for the Confederates.
The US Army was integrated before the war, but the addition of so many state militia units changed that.
I don't know why you think we couldn't grow the Army many fold, to fight amongst ourselves or against external enemies. That's pretty much been the pattern of the US military. A small, very small, standing army, backed up to one degree or anther by the militia. And/or by massive conscription after the war starts (or just before in the case of WW-II, when conscription passed by a single vote).
The militia, unlike the regulars, did not have that much of a logistics establishment. Even today the Guard depends upon the Army for all its equipment. For all practical purposes, as well as in law, the Guard is part of the Army, as are the Reserve forces of the various services. In a way things have reversed, with the guard, and especially the purely federal reserve forces, providing much of the combat or field logistics support (moving the beans, bullets, drilling for water, etc) for the Regular Army, as well as those "teeth" portions of the Reserve components. That's for the Army, things are a bit different in the Air Force/Air Guard as well as Navy and Marines. The active forces do provide the rear components of the logistics tail, including R&D and central procurement activities.
I had a light gray suit before, please keep that under your hat :)
Do any of the history books at this school have a rebel flag pictured in them?
I grew up in Houston when blacks still sat in the back of the bus. We lived near Griggs and Mykawa by Jesse Jones H.S.
I went to Lee in San Antonio. A big school with a great football history. Finalists in my grad year (70) and State Champs in 71.
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.