PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Lets Ban on Confederate Flag Stand



Pvt Schnapps
10-09-2009, 11:59 AM
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/oct/07/supreme-court-refuses-hear-confederate-flag-petiti/?partner=popular

Seems the Supreme Court does not see a compelling need to intervene on behalf of a student's right to wear the battle flag in school.


MARYVILLE - Some fans of the Confederate flag have lost their legal battle over a ban on wearing the Rebel emblem at an eastern Tennessee high school.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a petition from a group of now-former students at William Blount High School in Maryville who challenged the dress code four years ago. The students were threatened with suspension if they wore Confederate flag T-shirts.

"They should have listened to it, at least heard (our) side of the story," one of the students, Craig White, told WVLT-TV.

"We were just being called out in what we were wearing, when not one of us were involved in what was going on," said his sister, Nicole White. "So it was just unfair to us."

But school officials felt the ban was necessary after several race-related incidents, including fights that led to a school lockdown and graffiti.

Schools Director Rob Britt said he is happy the issue is resolved.

"We won at the circuit and district levels, and for the Supreme Court not hearing it, really validates and supports our policy and position," he said.

Arguments continue over the flag ban, but Britt said tensions have calmed since 2005.

Britt said the end of the lawsuit reaffirms the dress code policy, and he hopes it will prevent others from trying to wear the Confederate flag in schools.

But similar cases are pending elsewhere. The Confederate flag has been banned as an inflammatory symbol of racism, while flag supporters believe they have a free-speech right to express pride in their Southern heritage.

In August, a federal judge in Knoxville upheld a similar ban on Confederate-themed clothing in the nearby Anderson County school system. The case has been appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in part, based on testimony that racial tensions were low at the plaintiff's school.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in South Carolina ruled last month in favor of a Confederate flag clothing ban in the Latta school system. Flag supporters say they will appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday's News Sentinel.

© 2009, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

DamYankee25
10-09-2009, 12:20 PM
They always seem to forget that the US Flag flew over slavery a lot longer than the Confederate Flag did.

Blockade Runner
10-09-2009, 12:21 PM
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/oct/07/supreme-court-refuses-hear-confederate-flag-petiti/?partner=popular

Seems the Supreme Court does not see a compelling need to intervene on behalf of a student's right to wear the battle flag in school.


MARYVILLE - Some fans of the Confederate flag have lost their legal battle over a ban on wearing the Rebel emblem at an eastern Tennessee high school.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a petition from a group of now-former students at William Blount High School in Maryville who challenged the dress code four years ago. The students were threatened with suspension if they wore Confederate flag T-shirts.

"They should have listened to it, at least heard (our) side of the story," one of the students, Craig White, told WVLT-TV.

"We were just being called out in what we were wearing, when not one of us were involved in what was going on," said his sister, Nicole White. "So it was just unfair to us."

But school officials felt the ban was necessary after several race-related incidents, including fights that led to a school lockdown and graffiti.

Schools Director Rob Britt said he is happy the issue is resolved.

"We won at the circuit and district levels, and for the Supreme Court not hearing it, really validates and supports our policy and position," he said.

Arguments continue over the flag ban, but Britt said tensions have calmed since 2005.

Britt said the end of the lawsuit reaffirms the dress code policy, and he hopes it will prevent others from trying to wear the Confederate flag in schools.

But similar cases are pending elsewhere. The Confederate flag has been banned as an inflammatory symbol of racism, while flag supporters believe they have a free-speech right to express pride in their Southern heritage.

In August, a federal judge in Knoxville upheld a similar ban on Confederate-themed clothing in the nearby Anderson County school system. The case has been appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in part, based on testimony that racial tensions were low at the plaintiff's school.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in South Carolina ruled last month in favor of a Confederate flag clothing ban in the Latta school system. Flag supporters say they will appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday's News Sentinel.

© 2009, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

But isn't it GREAT that the world's largest Confederate Flag is still proudly waving on private property near Tampa, FL.;)

Blockade Runner
10-09-2009, 12:23 PM
They always seem to forget that the US Flag flew over slavery a lot longer than the Confederate Flag did.

Not only that, Dam Yankee...no Confederate ship, flying a Confederate flag, ever transported slaves to the Untited States.

"Doc" Nelson
10-09-2009, 12:29 PM
Not only that, Dam Yankee...no Confederate ship, flying a Confederate flag, ever transported slaves to the Untited States.
Or that slavery wasn't abolished until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 . . 8 months "after" the war ended.

Pvt Schnapps
10-09-2009, 01:35 PM
So the Confederacy was all about freeing slaves. Thanks guys, for taking on the chin for equal rights! :)

lincolnsguard
10-09-2009, 01:55 PM
So, buy the kid a shirt with the Bonnie Blue or a Hardee's Corps flag instead. The court only banned one flag. (i saw this great idea somewhere.):D

"Doc" Nelson
10-09-2009, 03:02 PM
So, buy the kid a shirt with the Bonnie Blue or a Hardee's Corps flag instead. The court only banned one flag. (i saw this great idea somewhere.):D
Yeah, you're right. It's only a matter of time before these "so-called" civil rights groups (i.e. "Southern Poverty Law Center" . . which are a bunch of frauds anyway) figure that out as well.

If we're gonna hate on one flag that they feel symbolizes slavery . . then hate on every flag that has flown in America. The "Stars and Stripes" has been around since 1777. Slavery was an institution under the American flag, why not hate on the American flag?

Craig L Barry
10-09-2009, 03:19 PM
If you wore the Bonnie Blue flag, nobody would know what it was or what it meant, such is the state of ignorance of American History in the public schools.

sbl
10-09-2009, 03:37 PM
US Flag over "Not Slavery"...144 years and counting.

Pvt Schnapps
10-09-2009, 03:44 PM
Yeah, you're right. It's only a matter of time before these "so-called" civil rights groups (i.e. "Southern Poverty Law Center" . . which are a bunch of frauds anyway) figure that out as well.

If we're gonna hate on one flag that they feel symbolizes slavery . . then hate on every flag that has flown in America. The "Stars and Stripes" has been around since 1777. Slavery was an institution under the American flag, why not hate on the American flag?

This may be stating the obvious, but since you asked: the "Stars and Stripes" flew over all of America, with all its virtues and sins. It flew over free states, it flew over states trying to eradicate slavery, and it flew over states wedded to the peculiar institution. When we look at it today it reminds of us everything we love about America, including its humanity, which includes a tendency to not always be right.

The "Stars and Bars" on the other hand just flew over the last category -- slave states -- and the "Battle Flag" just flew over the army of those states for three years. It then spent the next century and a half flying over nazis, the KKK, opponents of integration, and neo-Confederates.

It also flies over the occasional reenactor and afficianado of southern heritage, but thanks to the previously-listed categories of wingnuts, many folks aren't particularly inclined to be open-minded about it.

And, according to the courts, they don't have to be. No doubt that if the Bonnie Blue or Hardee's Corps banners had been the emblem of choice at lynchings and anti-civil rights demonstrations, they would be in the same quandary. But they weren't, so they remain available as inoffensive symbols of heritage.

Unless you want to offend, why not use them?

wheres_my_horse
10-09-2009, 04:55 PM
IMHO, you hit the nail on the head, Michael.

People have to use their brain housing group for more than a hat rack. SC has a brewhaha over the "Battle Flag", so The Citadel decides no more battle flags at football games. Enter Big Red. Never stolen by another group for hate, even more historically significant for the school.

"Doc" Nelson
10-09-2009, 05:45 PM
This may be stating the obvious, but since you asked: the "Stars and Stripes" flew over all of America, with all its virtues and sins. It flew over free states, it flew over states trying to eradicate slavery, and it flew over states wedded to the peculiar institution. When we look at it today it reminds of us everything we love about America, including its humanity, which includes a tendency to not always be right.Agreed!


It then spent the next century and a half flying over nazis, the KKK, opponents of integration, and neo-Confederates.Its these idiots that give any flag a bad name.

Blockade Runner
10-09-2009, 06:08 PM
This may be stating the obvious, but since you asked: the "Stars and Stripes" flew over all of America, with all its virtues and sins. It flew over free states, it flew over states trying to eradicate slavery, and it flew over states wedded to the peculiar institution. When we look at it today it reminds of us everything we love about America, including its humanity, which includes a tendency to not always be right.

The "Stars and Bars" on the other hand just flew over the last category -- slave states -- and the "Battle Flag" just flew over the army of those states for three years. It then spent the next century and a half flying over nazis, the KKK, opponents of integration, and neo-Confederates.

It also flies over the occasional reenactor and afficianado of southern heritage, but thanks to the previously-listed categories of wingnuts, many folks aren't particularly inclined to be open-minded about it.

And, according to the courts, they don't have to be. No doubt that if the Bonnie Blue or Hardee's Corps banners had been the emblem of choice at lynchings and anti-civil rights demonstrations, they would be in the same quandary. But they weren't, so they remain available as inoffensive symbols of heritage.

Unless you want to offend, why not use them?

Quite frankly, none of us who regularly carry or fly the Confederate Battle Flag care what the PC crowd thinks. Perhaps some might characterize that as insensitive...well, boo-hoo. We carry numerous flags, but we will continue to proudly carry the flag that the majority of Confederate Veterans felt was the flag they marched behind and fought for during the War for Southern Independence. If some malevolent groups and individuals over the years have usurped it for their own agenda that's unfortunate, but it doesn't diminish what we know in our heart the flag truly represents.

Liberal voices in academia and the media have also attempted to malign the Confederate Battle Flag for their own purposes, chiefly to denigrate the memory of the Confederate fighting man. The great irony is that these same liberal voices are always ready and willing to stifle free exprssion and free speech when it's in opposition to their narrow politial perspective. However, we know they will ever succeed in stifling us. What irks the other side so much is they know that, too.;)

Pvt Schnapps
10-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Quite frankly, none of us who regularly carry or fly the Confederate Battle Flag care what the PC crowd thinks. Perhaps some might characterize that as insensitive...well, boo-hoo. We carry numerous flags, but we will continue to proudly carry the flag that the majority of Confederate Veterans felt was the flag they marched behind and fought for during the War for Southern Independence. If some malevolent groups and individuals over the years have usurped it for their own agenda that's unfortunate, but it doesn't diminish what we know in our heart the flag truly represents.

Liberal voices in academia and the media have also attempted to malign the Confederate Battle Flag for their own purposes, chiefly to denigrate the memory of the Confederate fighting man. The great irony is that these same liberal voices are always ready and willing to stifle free exprssion and free speech when it's in opposition to their narrow politial perspective. However, we know they will ever succeed in stifling us. What irks the other side so much is they know that, too.;)

I should probably mention that I was raised in Virginia, am proud of that fact, still live here, enjoy the heritage of rebellions from 1675 forward, and particularly enjoy the state flag, which I only discovered recently was adopted in the opening days of the civil war. I also take special delight in the idea that the American army most likely to lead the U. S. parade in Valhalla would be called the Army of Northern Virginia.

That said, I cringe at the abuse of the battle flag. You should know that a large number of right-thinking people -- including Virginians who thrill to their heritage of rebellion -- associate it with fringe, right-wing political movements having little or nothing to do with the original Confederate soldiers.

If your major goal is to thumb your nose at "liberals" then by all means keep flying it. I find it telling that you say "in stifling us" and "the other side." The real Confederate soldiers are all dead, so there's no "us" about them, and with the war long over they no longer have an "other side." Your flying that flag is, unfortunately, all about you and has nothing to do with them.

The truth is, I feel sorry to see their banners in your hands. I can't see how you're worthy of them, and I honestly think that your inability to see that is perhaps the most "insensitive" fact about you.

Blockade Runner
10-10-2009, 08:29 PM
I should probably mention that I was raised in Virginia, am proud of that fact, still live here, enjoy the heritage of rebellions from 1675 forward, and particularly enjoy the state flag, which I only discovered recently was adopted in the opening days of the civil war. I also take special delight in the idea that the American army most likely to lead the U. S. parade in Valhalla would be called the Army of Northern Virginia.

That said, I cringe at the abuse of the battle flag. You should know that a large number of right-thinking people -- including Virginians who thrill to their heritage of rebellion -- associate it with fringe, right-wing political movements having little or nothing to do with the original Confederate soldiers.

If your major goal is to thumb your nose at "liberals" then by all means keep flying it. I find it telling that you say "in stifling us" and "the other side." The real Confederate soldiers are all dead, so there's no "us" about them, and with the war long over they no longer have an "other side." Your flying that flag is, unfortunately, all about you and has nothing to do with them.

The truth is, I feel sorry to see their banners in your hands. I can't see how you're worthy of them, and I honestly think that your inability to see that is perhaps the most "insensitive" fact about you.

Pvt. Schnapps...the funny thing about your response is that I suppose we'll need to group you with the liberal intelligensia, since our Color Guard certainly aren't Nazis or the KKK, we are simply a group that honors its ancestors in parades and grave side ceremonies. YOUR problem appears to be with the public presentation of the Confederate Battle Flag.

We do share one common perspective...I don't see you as being "worthy" to carry any Union banner.;)

Regular DOC
10-10-2009, 08:42 PM
This may be stating the obvious, but since you asked: the "Stars and Stripes" flew over all of America, with all its virtues and sins. It flew over free states, it flew over states trying to eradicate slavery, and it flew over states wedded to the peculiar institution. When we look at it today it reminds of us everything we love about America, including its humanity, which includes a tendency to not always be right.

The "Stars and Bars" on the other hand just flew over the last category -- slave states -- and the "Battle Flag" just flew over the army of those states for three years. It then spent the next century and a half flying over nazis, the KKK, opponents of integration, and neo-Confederates.

It also flies over the occasional reenactor and afficianado of southern heritage, but thanks to the previously-listed categories of wingnuts, many folks aren't particularly inclined to be open-minded about it.

And, according to the courts, they don't have to be. No doubt that if the Bonnie Blue or Hardee's Corps banners had been the emblem of choice at lynchings and anti-civil rights demonstrations, they would be in the same quandary. But they weren't, so they remain available as inoffensive symbols of heritage.

Unless you want to offend, why not use them?


Mike

You know me I am no fan of the the "Stars and Bars" my fear is always how far does this insanity go. I really hate most restrictions on free speech to include symbols and speech I despise or am offended by. This includes Mao shirts, Che shirts(I always find these funny actually to see an avowed anti-capitalist terrorist being used as a marketing tool.) , Nazi symbols as well as those mentioned above. I despise all that those things symbolize however I have always felt the answer to hate speech and symbols is more speech and symbols not less. Now in schools I feel that is the descretion of the school board to set dress standards. However if they were to allow an anti-religon t-shirt or the typical Che/Mao stuff and not the Stars and Bars then they are in the wrong IMHO.

sbl
10-10-2009, 10:07 PM
Never mind.....

sbl
10-10-2009, 10:32 PM
Mike

.........Now in schools I feel that is the descretion of the school board to set dress standards. However if they were to allow an anti-religon t-shirt or the typical Che/Mao stuff and not the Stars and Bars then they are in the wrong IMHO.


Most likely schools won't allow any of it. The Che/ Mao stuff is still "ironic." Most non-theists tend to keep a low profile. I can't speak for the kids that play pagan. Mine don't wear or never have worn any political/social message clothing. In any school with "mixed races", and I hate it that I still have to write that after 50 something years, wearing Confederate iconography is either provocation or ignorance.

Regular DOC
10-11-2009, 12:00 AM
Most likely schools won't allow any of it. The Che/ Mao stuff is still "ironic." Most non-theists tend to keep a low profile. I can't speak for the kids that play pagan. Mine don't wear or never have worn any political/social message clothing. In any school with "mixed races", and I hate it that I still have to write that after 50 something years, wearing Confederate iconography is either provocation or ignorance.

I have seen several anti-religon shirts in local high schools. Again personnally I could care less about shirts like that. I nerves me when Confederate iconography is banned while anti-religon stuff isn't or vice versa. Both are either worn for provocation or ignorance as you said. I know many who are offended by anti-god stuff. As I said it is all or none kinda thing for me. In many cases it is more the ignorance sometimes by accident. Such as someone wearing a Dukes of Hazard shirt not for the Confederate protion but the Dukes stuff.(Yes a little out of culture but you get the point.) Heck once I was asked to remove a CWPT ballcap at a Navy Command function cause of the symbol having half a "Stars and Bars". Sounds silly I know. When I said you gotta be kidding I was ordered too remove it. I complied of course but it seemed a bit silly to me. I think both sides make more of the flag then really needs be. Like I said I am offended by the twits who wear shirts with the face of a mass murdering meglo-maniac (Che) however I will not start a fight over it.

sbl
10-11-2009, 06:43 AM
I have seen several anti-religon shirts in local high schools.

What kind? What message? Anti-Christian or something like "Imagine No Religion?"



Again personnally I could care less about shirts like that. I nerves me when Confederate iconography is banned while anti-religon stuff isn't or vice versa. Both are either worn for provocation or ignorance as you said. I know many who are offended by anti-god stuff. As I said it is all or none kinda thing for me. In many cases it is more the ignorance sometimes by accident. Such as someone wearing a Dukes of Hazard shirt not for the Confederate protion but the Dukes stuff.(Yes a little out of culture but you get the point.) Heck once I was asked to remove a CWPT ballcap at a Navy Command function cause of the symbol having half a "Stars and Bars". Sounds silly I know. When I said you gotta be kidding I was ordered too remove it. I complied of course but it seemed a bit silly to me.

I'm a civilian. It doesn't sound silly to me if the commanders are careful of the image of the unit and unit cohesion. I've worked for corporations like that.



I think both sides make more of the flag then really needs be. Like I said I am offended by the twits who wear shirts with the face of a mass murdering meglo-maniac (Che) however I will not start a fight over it.

If Che is the gold standard of evil, then his body count has to be much higher than other notable terrorist/freedom fighters living or dead not that an image of him has become iconic.

Pvt Schnapps
10-11-2009, 08:09 AM
Pvt. Schnapps...the funny thing about your response is that I suppose we'll need to group you with the liberal intelligensia, since our Color Guard certainly aren't Nazis or the KKK, we are simply a group that honors its ancestors in parades and grave side ceremonies. YOUR problem appears to be with the public presentation of the Confederate Battle Flag.

We do share one common perspective...I don't see you as being "worthy" to carry any Union banner.;)

I've grown up under the American flag, so I have as much right to it as anyone, including you.

But you've already established the fact that your motivation is contemporary and personal to you. You wouldn't honor Confederate veterans any less with the Stars and Bars or the Stars and Stripes. Instead you pick the flag that has the most negative connotations for many of your fellow citizens, and instead of directing their attentions to the honorable sacrifices of real Confederate soldiers, you make the display about you, and your desire to wave that flag. That may not be your intent, but I fear that it has that effect, and thus works against the higher purpose you wish to serve.

Pvt Schnapps
10-11-2009, 08:19 AM
I have seen several anti-religon shirts in local high schools. Again personnally I could care less about shirts like that. I nerves me when Confederate iconography is banned while anti-religon stuff isn't or vice versa. Both are either worn for provocation or ignorance as you said. I know many who are offended by anti-god stuff. As I said it is all or none kinda thing for me. In many cases it is more the ignorance sometimes by accident. Such as someone wearing a Dukes of Hazard shirt not for the Confederate protion but the Dukes stuff.(Yes a little out of culture but you get the point.) Heck once I was asked to remove a CWPT ballcap at a Navy Command function cause of the symbol having half a "Stars and Bars". Sounds silly I know. When I said you gotta be kidding I was ordered too remove it. I complied of course but it seemed a bit silly to me. I think both sides make more of the flag then really needs be. Like I said I am offended by the twits who wear shirts with the face of a mass murdering meglo-maniac (Che) however I will not start a fight over it.

What the courts are saying is that schools have a right to maintain order. I'm not crazy about some of the decisions they make, either. But the fact that their decision puts Confederate emblems on the same level as "Bong Hits for Jesus" probably says less about censorship than about the criminal abuse that Confederate emblems have undergone in the last century or so. If the crowds at lynchings in the twenties or blocking school doors in the fifties had featured prominent displays of Black Sabbath or Che t-shirts, they'd probably be banned in high schools, too.

I guess then the kids that want to wear them would just have to wait till they were adults and could apply for their parade permits.

Regular DOC
10-11-2009, 05:01 PM
What kind? What message? Anti-Christian or something like "Imagine No Religion?"




I'm a civilian. It doesn't sound silly to me if the commanders are careful of the image of the unit and unit cohesion. I've worked for corporations like that.




If Che is the gold standard of evil, then his body count has to be much higher than other notable terrorist/freedom fighters living or dead not that an image of him has become iconic.



The shirts have run the gambit from your imagine no religon, which is offensive to some by saying their beliefs are wrong, to specific anti-christian and anti-muslim.

Regular DOC
10-11-2009, 05:08 PM
What the courts are saying is that schools have a right to maintain order. I'm not crazy about some of the decisions they make, either. But the fact that their decision puts Confederate emblems on the same level as "Bong Hits for Jesus" probably says less about censorship than about the criminal abuse that Confederate emblems have undergone in the last century or so. If the crowds at lynchings in the twenties or blocking school doors in the fifties had featured prominent displays of Black Sabbath or Che t-shirts, they'd probably be banned in high schools, too.

I guess then the kids that want to wear them would just have to wait till they were adults and could apply for their parade permits.


I concur Mike that schools should have the right to do that. However I feel it should be a blanket restriction on all emblematic items with the exception of school pride stuff.

sbl
10-11-2009, 05:11 PM
I wouldn't allow my kids to wear that stuff in school as it's disruptive and I would support a school board that prohibits it. They're in school to learn and not provoke. The French have the right idea about religious trappings in public schools. You are a citizen (of the children of citizens of France) while in school.
I hope that's still in effect.

billwatson2
10-11-2009, 05:34 PM
Poor Che. An idealist without context, a philosopher without the words to communicate, a man obsessed by injustice and convinced he could find the goodness in humanity within each man's fulfillment rather than in salary levels. It's easy to look at his writings now and say "oh, he thought the best satisfaction was personal fulfillment and saw the economic system as a perversion making personal fulfillment irrelevant," but it was almost impossible to say that in 1960. It's a very eastern concept: Even if your job is only that of janitor, all is right with the world if you know everything there is to know about the art of pushing a broom and are satisfied you've wrung all you can out of it. The western idea is "minimum amount of effort to do the job good enough, and by the way I want a raise."

Batista, the man Castro and Guevara deposed, executed 20,000 people during his regime, some after torture. Guevara ordered the execution of several hundred people after they were convicted before tribunals.

Like the battle flag of the Confederacy, what Che actually believed, did and said has undergone radical transformation since he believed it, did it and said it, and he is just as polarizing a symbol as the battle flag. It is high irony that so much of the disdain for each is the result of ignorance of actual facts. I'd not put him in the category of either megalomania, since he pretty much ignored opportunities to wield more power in favor of pursuing some sort of revolutionary ideals, and as mass murderers go he was pretty small potatoes. There is no denying that by the time of the Cuban revolution, he was a hard, hard man - very very much in the mold of Stonewall Jackson, ordered men under his military command executed for being absent without leave, for informing, etc. Brutal combat makes some men hard.

I don't particularly want to speak up on Che's behalf, it's simply that the choice of him as a counterargument or something struck me as flabbergastingly ironic. And no, I didn't do a lot of research on him: Some of us have been around and involved long enough to REMEMBER some of this stuff. :D

sbl
10-11-2009, 05:48 PM
"dress appropriately for a learning environment"


That's all it says on the Gloucester Public School website. My daughter added that skirt hems have to touch your fingertips with your hands by your sides and no spagetti straps.

hendrickms24
10-11-2009, 06:23 PM
"dress appropriately for a learning environment"


That's all it says on the Gloucester Public School website. My daughter added that skirt hems have to touch your fingertips with your hands by your sides and no spagetti straps.

Now that rule is to keep the male students paying more attention to their lessons then the skirt hems. ;)

sbl
10-11-2009, 06:43 PM
What's scary is that this is middle school...8th grade.

Regular DOC
10-11-2009, 06:45 PM
Batista, the man Castro and Guevara deposed, executed 20,000 people during his regime, some after torture. Guevara ordered the execution of several hundred people after they were convicted before tribunals.

Ahh wrong Che oredered the execution of hundreds without trials and often after torture. He was famed in saying the trials are for after execution. It disgusts me you would even try to justify his actions. In addition he placed into a power a brutal regime that has murdered torture and imprisoned people for simply speaking out for the past 50+ years.

Regular DOC
10-11-2009, 06:49 PM
I wouldn't allow my kids to wear that stuff in school as it's disruptive and I would support a school board that prohibits it. They're in school to learn and not provoke. The French have the right idea about religious trappings in public schools. You are a citizen (of the children of citizens of France) while in school.
I hope that's still in effect. Trappings are a different thing a headscarf or a yamika or a cross on a necklace I have no issue with. I think the French are dead wrong in their head scarf etc ban. Especially since it to me tells people they are second class citizens if they believe in religon.

sbl
10-12-2009, 08:07 AM
............ In addition he placed into a power a brutal regime that has murdered torture and imprisoned people for simply speaking out for the past 50+ years.

BTW... how is our embargo working out. Any Day. ("WINK") ;)

FloridaHoosier
10-12-2009, 09:28 AM
Alright lads, this is a shot over the bow - ditch the modern political talk on both sides. It doesn't matter what Batista, Guevera, or today's France did or thinks, as they bear little relevance to flags and statues of the Civil War. Move along now, nothing to see here.....

MDRebCAv
10-13-2009, 07:52 AM
School uniforms...'nuff said!

BTW...just for the record even as the Chapalin for our unit and a student for the ministry...I too am really agains "religion."

Religion is a man-made concept that often interferes with a personal relationship with G-d (eliminating the "o" is not PC but a sign of respect).

It is each person's exercise of free will to accept a relationship with G-d or to reject it without "RELIGION" muddying the waters. One of my favorite lines is from a contemporary Christian songs by Big Daddy Weave, "Fields of Grace"..."There's a place where religion finally dies."

I never hide the fact that I am a Christian but my best reenacting buddy is Jewish--no problems there. I will preach from my personal perspective but it is each person's right of free will to accept or reject with no reprecutions from me--it is between each person and their own concept of G-d.

So, Yeah...I can imagine no religion. And i really prefer the First National anyway, but the only flag I will defend to the death is the one that I took the oath under...the U.S. flag.

sbl
10-13-2009, 10:15 AM
From something I wrote about the 1st Rhode Island Detached Militia.

"The Reverend (Augustus Woodbury) noted that Camp Sprague was a favorite place for visits from Washington society including the President. Between himself and Father Quinn the camp also had plenty of spiritual activity with Roman Catholic and Unitarian services. Woodbury noted how good manners overcame religious differences. Father Quinn was conversing with a New York chaplain who wondered how he got along “with that Unitarian?” Quinn set him straight. “I have yet to learn, Sir, that religious differences are to be allowed to interrupt that intercourse which is becoming to scholars and gentlemen!”

source....Woodbury, Augustus A Narrative of the Campaign of the First Rhode Island Regiment In The Spring and Summer Of 1861. Providence: Rider,1862."

Malingerer
10-13-2009, 11:52 AM
And yet another contemporary source:

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

Regular DOC
10-13-2009, 01:10 PM
School uniforms...'nuff said!

.


Problem with that is uniforms can add costs for low income families. Also it does get a little toward the facist side for me. As I said I just feel that any ban should be a broad general ban.

50th vice pres
10-14-2009, 08:48 PM
So, buy the kid a shirt with the Bonnie Blue or a Hardee's Corps flag instead. The court only banned one flag. (i saw this great idea somewhere.):D

How about having a shirt made with ALL the recognized official and non-official confederate flags on it? This way people could be edjamacated on the flags all at once!

50th vice pres
10-14-2009, 08:58 PM
School uniforms...'nuff said!

BTW...just for the record even as the Chapalin for our unit and a student for the ministry...I too am really agains "religion."

Religion is a man-made concept that often interferes with a personal relationship with G-d (eliminating the "o" is not PC but a sign of respect).

It is each person's exercise of free will to accept a relationship with G-d or to reject it without "RELIGION" muddying the waters. One of my favorite lines is from a contemporary Christian songs by Big Daddy Weave, "Fields of Grace"..."There's a place where religion finally dies."

I never hide the fact that I am a Christian but my best reenacting buddy is Jewish--no problems there. I will preach from my personal perspective but it is each person's right of free will to accept or reject with no reprecutions from me--it is between each person and their own concept of G-d.

So, Yeah...I can imagine no religion. And i really prefer the First National anyway, but the only flag I will defend to the death is the one that I took the oath under...the U.S. flag.

GOD! There I wrote it for you. Dont be worried about affending someone about writing GOD. He is the Almighty, forever and always. Without Him there is no life, and besides, I can garan-dam-te you that many soilders cried out to God and Jesus during their last moments here on earth. Some where ready to meet Him, while unfortunately others where not.

sbl
10-14-2009, 11:16 PM
http://www.mindspring.com/~alutiiq/atheists-in-foxholes.html

Malingerer
10-15-2009, 08:48 AM
GOD! There I wrote it for you. Dont be worried about affending someone about writing GOD. He is the Almighty, forever and always. Without Him there is no life, and besides, I can garan-dam-te you that many soilders cried out to God and Jesus during their last moments here on earth. Some where ready to meet Him, while unfortunately others where not.

Thomas Jefferson may have disagreed:

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." Notes on the state of Virginia

sbl
10-15-2009, 09:10 AM
The most I ever got out of my dad about when he was wounded was that when he was getting the last rites, he was more concerned about the medic removing his GI false teeth.

Then again my Father-In-Law, wounded in Korea, is still devout.

hanktrent
10-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Thomas Jefferson may have disagreed:

Just ran across a quote in somebody's sig line this morning from the TV show House. I don't watch it myself, but thought this was pretty good: "If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people."

On the topic of Confederate flags, I think I've told this story here before. At a local cemetery memorial service a few years ago, some modern soldiers started off carrying little first national flags to another part of the cemetery. I commented to the representative of the local historical society, who'd previously been involved in putting flags on the few Confederate graves, something about it was good to see the CS graves still being decorated. She argued with me that the soldiers were carrying Ohio state flags (http://www.buy-american-flag.com/american-flag-states/ohio-state-flag.full.gif), and therefore probably weren't going to decorate the CS graves.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

sbl
10-15-2009, 10:53 AM
http://www.cubaflags.com/images/cuban-flag-old.jpg


http://caribbeanways.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/puerto-rico-flag.jpg

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
10-15-2009, 03:07 PM
Hallo!

"She argued with me that the soldiers were carrying Ohio state flags, and therefore probably weren't going to decorate the CS graves."

D**n those Obama flags!

:) :) :)

CHS

huntdaw
10-15-2009, 04:26 PM
"If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people."

Oh, I don't know about that. I consider myself to be a very religious person but also consider myself to be quite reasonable and willing to discuss all sorts of things with different people. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

sbl
10-16-2009, 08:36 AM
You have to admit......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCg994AA-ug

Malingerer
10-16-2009, 11:50 AM
Oh, I don't know about that. I consider myself to be a very religious person but also consider myself to be quite reasonable and willing to discuss all sorts of things with different people. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Maybe its me, but this just doesn't seem all that reasonable:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

hanktrent
10-16-2009, 12:31 PM
Maybe its me, but this just doesn't seem all that reasonable:

The way I take the original quote, it's designed to point out the basic difference between reason and faith.

People with faith are considered by other faithful people to be better, stronger, more faithful, etc., if they continue to maintain their faith regardless how much their beliefs go against reason.

People who use reason are considered by other people like themselves to be using their powers of reason better, if they're willing to change their minds as new evidence comes forth, rather than stubbornly continuing to believe the same things "without any reason."

Thus, if you could reason with religious people on all topics, i.e. if they based their beliefs on reason, they wouldn't have or need faith, and therefore, almost by definition, they wouldn't be religious.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

huntdaw
10-16-2009, 01:24 PM
So, I don't quite understand what you are saying Peter. Since a passage of scripture strikes you as being unreasonable and since I profess to be a religious yet reasonable person, herego I must not be because you cite this scripture passage that you find unreasonable? Does holding to a set of standards and values make one unreasonable?
Then would that not also make non-religious people unreasonable? Do they not also have a set of standards and values?

If I'm misreading the intent of your post, I apologize.

Malingerer
10-16-2009, 01:50 PM
So, I don't quite understand what you are saying Peter. Since a passage of scripture strikes you as being unreasonable and since I profess to be a religious yet reasonable person, herego I must not be because you cite this scripture passage that you find unreasonable? Does holding to a set of standards and values make one unreasonable?
Then would that not also make non-religious people unreasonable? Do they not also have a set of standards and values?

If I'm misreading the intent of your post, I apologize.

Michael, I appologize for my lack of clarity. The point of my post was that here was an example (one of many) of religous docterine that is patently unreasonable. Yet many folks (all of whom, no doubt, profess a high degree of 'reasonableness') subscribe to thei nfallibility of the book from which I pulled the passage. There is nothing, either reasonable nor moral about this passage. So, my question then becomes 'how can moral and rational people believe something so utterly absurd and immoral?'

sbl
10-16-2009, 02:12 PM
So, I don't quite understand what you are saying Peter. Since a passage of scripture strikes you as being unreasonable and since I profess to be a religious yet reasonable person, herego I must not be because you cite this scripture passage that you find unreasonable? Does holding to a set of standards and values make one unreasonable?
Then would that not also make non-religious people unreasonable? Do they not also have a set of standards and values?

....."

Actually we do have a set of standards. They pre-existed the Jewish OT. Did the 10 Commandments need to list respect for parents, lying, stealing, and murder as something new? Richard Dawkins discussed in The God Delusion that humans that practiced goodness to other humans with-in their groups, families' clans tended to survive to pass on their DNA. Observations of Chimps show that they don't tolerate murder or infidelity. Human children that obeyed their parents tended not to pet the wolf or play near the cliff and survive to pass on their DNA. One can also recognize the US Constitution which is a secular document.

FloridaHoosier
10-16-2009, 02:25 PM
This has once again strayed from the intended discussion and into a discourse on modern politics and religion. This is headed for the lock at this rate...

huntdaw
10-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Didn't say it did Scott. Reread my post - I state that non-religious people have standards of their own also.

Anyway, I'm going to stop now so Ross won't have to lock down the thread.

sbl
10-16-2009, 03:36 PM
Didn't say it did Scott. Reread my post - I state that non-religious people have standards of their own also.

Anyway, I'm going to stop now so Ross won't have to lock down the thread.

Right. I was commenting on where those standards may come from. Sorry It read that I was arguing with you.

Provost
10-16-2009, 05:22 PM
Members can take such discussions to PM if they wish, but these topics seem to be straying way off the purpose of this forum and this thread.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

sbl
10-16-2009, 07:26 PM
Members can take such discussions to PM if they wish, but these topics seem to be straying way off the purpose of this forum and this thread.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

Thanks Provost. :)

MDRebCAv
10-19-2009, 09:42 PM
I said it is actually a form of higher respect. My Jewish friends see this as a higher form of respect to GOD...see I have can write it but I explained it in my message.

Jim of the SRR
10-22-2009, 07:56 AM
If you wore the Bonnie Blue flag, nobody would know what it was or what it meant, such is the state of ignorance of American History in the public schools.

And if some asks, just tell them its the flag of Somalia.
He could also wear the first National flag...that wasn't banned. Also, all the neighbors could fly Confederate battle flags as well (it isn't that I like that solution, it is just an in-your-face way to say you don't like the government denying free speech.).
This is a slippery slope. What if Disney shirts offend someone? Should they be able to go to the Supreme Court to ban others from wearing them? Our Supreme Court is NO longer interpreting the Constitution, and more about legislating from the bench.

Jim Butler

Jim of the SRR
10-22-2009, 08:08 AM
Problem with that is uniforms can add costs for low income families. Also it does get a little toward the facist side for me. As I said I just feel that any ban should be a broad general ban.

Just give them another entitlement. Do you think lining up kids in public school to sing "Obama" songs is fascist as well?

Jim Butler

sbl
10-22-2009, 08:28 AM
With all the subjects that kids HAVE to learn plus 40-50 MORE years of history (for example) since I went to school, is memorizing the various flags of the Confederacy right up there with science or learning a trade or career?

Get your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews....

http://www.amazon.com/Stars-Stripes-Soldiers-Richard-Rosenblum/dp/0590452223


.....and read it with them. It covers the Confederacy as well.

Stars and stripes and soldiers
by Richard Rosenblum
Published in 1993, Scholastic (New York)


By statement: written and illustrated by Richard Rosenblum.
Language: English
Pagination: 32 p. :
ISBN 10: 0590452223
LCCN: 94108876
Dewey: 929.9/2/0973
LC: CR113 .R68 1993

Blockade Runner
10-22-2009, 02:44 PM
:-D
With all the subjects that kids HAVE to learn plus 40-50 MORE years of history (for example) since I went to school, is memorizing the various flags of the Confederacy right up there with science or learning a trade or career?

Get your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews....

http://www.amazon.com/Stars-Stripes-Soldiers-Richard-Rosenblum/dp/0590452223


.....and read it with them. It covers the Confederacy as well.

Stars and stripes and soldiers
by Richard Rosenblum
Published in 1993, Scholastic (New York)


By statement: written and illustrated by Richard Rosenblum.
Language: English
Pagination: 32 p. :
ISBN 10: 0590452223
LCCN: 94108876
Dewey: 929.9/2/0973
LC: CR113 .R68 1993

I prefer, "The South Was Right" by James and Walter Kennedy. It may also be purchased through Amazon:-D

sbl
10-22-2009, 03:00 PM
:-D

I prefer, "The South Was Right" by James and Walter Kennedy. It may also be purchased through Amazon:-D

Yep. That will bring us together.

RebelBugler
10-25-2009, 11:14 PM
Not only that, Dam Yankee...no Confederate ship, flying a Confederate flag, ever transported slaves to the Untited States.

In fact, the Confederate Constitution specificallly prohibited the International Slave Trade.

The Corwin amendment, which Lincoln was willing to accept, would have preserved the institution of slavery in perpetuity.

I guess that proves the WBTS was fought over slavery

RebelBugler
10-25-2009, 11:21 PM
US Flag over "Not Slavery"...144 years and counting.

I guess you must not be paying your fair share of taxes then! Now, we all are slaves to the burgeoning demands of big government. Americans had to work from January 1 until August 12 this year just to cover the cost of government.

hanktrent
10-26-2009, 12:33 AM
In fact, the Confederate Constitution specificallly prohibited the International Slave Trade.

While it may have been in part on humanitarian grounds, it was a carefully considered political move as well. It's easy to forget that different regions of the south had different self-interests, when they weren't united against the common enemy of the north.

Before the war, the deep south had agitated for the reopening of the African slave trade (http://books.google.com/books?id=siQKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA121&dq=african+slave+trade&output=html), although that would conflict with the interests of the slave-exporting states of the upper south, who would then be in open competition with importers of African slaves.

Prohibiting the African slave trade helped the young Confederacy in two ways: it would encourage Virginia and the rest of the slave-exporting border states to secede as well, since their interests would be protected, and it would be useful in convincing foreign powers, who weren't entirely comfortable with slavery, that they should recognize the Confederacy. The first worked very well; the second not so much.

A summary of the mindset at the beginning of secession, published in 1860, is here (http://books.google.com/books?id=1O4tAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA12&dq=african+slave+trade&output=html):


Now, the interest of these sections is different. The Slave-consuming States desire that the African slave-trade shall be re-opened: then they could get a slave for three hundred dollars, instead of fifteen hundred dollars. But the re-opening of the slave-trade would destroy the whole value of the slave-crop of Virginia; and would, in fact, make it her interest to emancipate.

And in fact, the promise of a prohibition of the African slave trade was blatantly offered as an appeasement to Virginia, in a speech (http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ12AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA155&dq=african+slave+trade&output=html)by Henry L. Renning of Georgia, inviting Virginia to join Georgia and the other states in secession:


Why, then, will you not come with us? What objections can you have? That the African slave-trade will be opened? There is no danger of that. Already, Georgia has unanimously declared against that trade. Two or three of the other seceding States have done the same thing. The Congress at Montgoomery have forbidden it by a constitutional provision. Above all, our highest interest is opposed to the reopening of that trade, for were it once reopened, were the barriers once broken down, such a mighty current would rush in from Africa, that our white race would be overwhelmed in the vast black pool. There is no danger of the reopening of the African slave-trade. But if you think otherwise, go down to Montgomery, and ask for a stipulation against it, and my word for it, your request will be granted.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

sbl
10-26-2009, 06:00 AM
Right....it's taxation WITH representation.

So far no Russian tanks on my recently paced street.

kgwolfe1
10-26-2009, 06:27 AM
By the reckoning that the confederate flag is racist shouldn't we think about hanging the US flag as well? After all it was the symbol of the land that supported slavery for more than "four score and seven years" didn't it?

RebelBugler
10-26-2009, 07:13 AM
Yep. That will bring us together.

I'm not sure it will bring you together.....but you will be better informed and learn some facets of history that you didn't know before!

RebelBugler
10-26-2009, 07:19 AM
[QUOTE]While it may have been in part on humanitarian grounds, it was a carefully considered political move as well.

In the same sense that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a carefully considered political move?

sbl
10-26-2009, 07:19 AM
By the reckoning that the confederate flag is racist shouldn't we think about hanging the US flag as well? After all it was the symbol of the land that supported slavery for more than "four score and seven years" didn't it?

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132555&postcount=1

sbl
10-26-2009, 07:24 AM
Maybe..... but the original question was flag history in grade schools.

Pvt Schnapps
10-26-2009, 08:26 AM
[QUOTE=hanktrent;134470]

In the same sense that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was a carefully considered political move?

Sure -- one only wonders why the South didn't free their slaves themselves and thus foil the rascally Lincoln. :)

hanktrent
10-26-2009, 09:16 AM
Sure -- one only wonders why the South didn't free their slaves themselves and thus foil the rascally Lincoln. :)

LOL! But to answer RebelBugler, of course. It's just that when people are trying to spin things to their advantage, they tend to emphasize the political maneuverings of the other side, while not noticing that their side is doing the same thing.

When it becomes less about refighting the war with sound bites and more about understanding both sides in depth, there's a lot of cool stuff to learn about both sides.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Pvt Schnapps
10-26-2009, 01:38 PM
When it becomes less about refighting the war with sound bites and more about understanding both sides in depth, there's a lot of cool stuff to learn about both sides.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

That's true. To me, the problem with a book called something like "The [South/North] Was Right" is, first, it's not an original source, so I'd be investing precious reading time in someone's opinion or interpretation rather than actual information, and, second, you have to ask yourself which South, or which North, and right about what? The entire subject would be much less interesting if it were really so simple.

RebelBugler
10-26-2009, 08:06 PM
The real Confederate soldiers are all dead, so there's no "us" about them, and with the war long over they no longer have an "other side." Your flying that flag is, unfortunately, all about you and has nothing to do with them.


You are right that all the real Confederate soldiers are dead. They cannot defend their actions, their cause and their honor. Those of us who are proud descendents can.

Flying their flag is all about them, at least from the perspective of those I know. It is abundantly clear that the history is written by the victors. Accordingly, we have seen negativity towards the Confederacy increase exponentially each year. Lee and Jackson are demonized for the issue of slavery while Grant, a slave owner, is lauded as a hero. Jefferson Davis is criticized ,despite taking the black orphan Jim Limber into his home, while Lincoln is praised for his alleged concern for the black community. Most history book fail to mention Lincoln's rude racist remarks, his willingness to maintain slavery to preserve the Union, or his desire to export blacks back to Africa. In a similar vein, mainstream history books generally fail to mention General Jackson educating blacks to read and write, in violation of Virginia law, or his weekly tithe to support a black Sunday school. Current history, to coin a modern term, is not "Fair and Balanced" but rather prejudicial towards the South.

Pvt Schnapps
10-26-2009, 09:26 PM
You are right that all the real Confederate soldiers are dead. They cannot defend their actions, their cause and their honor. Those of us who are proud descendents can.

Flying their flag is all about them, at least from the perspective of those I know. It is abundantly clear that the history is written by the victors. Accordingly, we have seen negativity towards the Confederacy increase exponentially each year. Lee and Jackson are demonized for the issue of slavery while Grant, a slave owner, is lauded as a hero. Jefferson Davis is criticized ,despite taking the black orphan Jim Limber into his home, while Lincoln is praised for his alleged concern for the black community. Most history book fail to mention Lincoln's rude racist remarks, his willingness to maintain slavery to preserve the Union, or his desire to export blacks back to Africa. In a similar vein, mainstream history books generally fail to mention General Jackson educating blacks to read and write, in violation of Virginia law, or his weekly tithe to support a black Sunday school. Current history, to coin a modern term, is not "Fair and Balanced" but rather prejudicial towards the South.

Face it -- it's not about them, it's about you. I grew up in Virginia and I still live here -- nobody demonized Lee and Jackson when I was growing up, and they don't now.

Your vision of oppressed southern white heroes and widespread incorrect history is a fantasy. I don't know why you indulge it or what inner need it serves, but it certainly adds nothing to the laurels real Confederate soldiers earned and still enjoy. If anything it just makes them look ridiculous.

Maybe if you spent more time on Google Books or Cornell's MOA site reading period accounts of the era instead of indulging in neo-CS comic books (I love this one -- "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend") you could actually enjoy our heritage instead of wandering off on these paranoid fugues. Maybe -- of course, first you'd have to try. Good luck with that.

PS -- I posted that quote more than two weeks ago. Did it really take you that long to think up a response?

hanktrent
10-26-2009, 10:23 PM
Y'know, I think the main problem is that the Confederacy has stood still, frozen in time, while the world has changed. Things that Confederates were proud of when their country existed, now seem embarrassing. That goes for the US in the 1860s too, of course, but the US still exists and so can keep changing to keep up with the times.

But it's hard to continually spin the same old past, to stay in favor with current opinion. A citizen of the Confederacy could brag that no black man would be equal to a white man in his country, and receive applause. Not so much anymore. Of course, a citizen of the US in the 1860s could have made the same claim to the same applause, but it's too easy to point to the living changing US around us and say, "well, that was embarrassing, but fortunately it's not like that anymore."

But the Confederacy is still there, locked in the past; there's nothing else to point to than what it was. The South--that's a different matter. The south has changed and can continue to do so; but the Confederacy itself came and went. It was what it was. One can point to a genuine paternalistic fondness toward blacks, and some examples of integration and relative equality such as among the very poor, but that's about it.

So to me, it just seems less desperate-sounding to simply accept what we consider the bad things about the Confederacy, rather than try to deny them or spin them to please a modern audience. Then when one does talk about the many good things, it seems more believable. And there was a bunch of good--a sense of honor, independence of thought, willingness to die for a cause, appreciation of agrarian life, and so forth.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

RebelBugler
10-27-2009, 07:20 AM
:confused:
Face it -- it's not about them, it's about you. I grew up in Virginia and I still live here -- nobody demonized Lee and Jackson when I was growing up, and they don't now.

Your vision of oppressed southern white heroes and widespread incorrect history is a fantasy. I don't know why you indulge it or what inner need it serves, but it certainly adds nothing to the laurels real Confederate soldiers earned and still enjoy. If anything it just makes them look ridiculous.

Maybe if you spent more time on Google Books or Cornell's MOA site reading period accounts of the era instead of indulging in neo-CS comic books (I love this one -- "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend") you could actually enjoy our heritage instead of wandering off on these paranoid fugues. Maybe -- of course, first you'd have to try. Good luck with that.

PS -- I posted that quote more than two weeks ago. Did it really take you that long to think up a response?

Candidly, your dime store psychological assessment that it is not about them reflects only your perception of individuals of whom you have no knowledge. As such , your supposed insight is not only meaningless but presumptuous. While on the subject, there is a certain arrogance and smugness reflected in your condescending remarks that, in my view, is inappropriate for intellectual discussions. However, if engaging in personal attacks satisfies some deeply rooted psychological need, then by all means continue.

As to your living in Virginia and not being aware of attempts to demonize Confederate leaders, you need to pay more attention. As a simple illustration, why is there no longer a Central Virginia Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html)

While on the subject, have you actually read "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend" and found false or inaccurate information? Have you ever been to Roanoke and visited Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to see the stained glass window dedicated to Jackson by the Black pastor who honors Jackson for his many contributions?
http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html (http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html)

For the record, I do not read neo-Confederate comic books but am curious as to whether you are still reading the Lincoln comics?

Pvt Schnapps
10-27-2009, 10:24 AM
:confused:

Candidly, your dime store psychological assessment that it is not about them reflects only your perception of individuals of whom you have no knowledge. As such , your supposed insight is not only meaningless but presumptuous. While on the subject, there is a certain arrogance and smugness reflected in your condescending remarks that, in my view, is inappropriate for intellectual discussions. However, if engaging in personal attacks satisfies some deeply rooted psychological need, then by all means continue.

As to your living in Virginia and not being aware of attempts to demonize Confederate leaders, you need to pay more attention. As a simple illustration, why is there no longer a Central Virginia Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html)

While on the subject, have you actually read "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend" and found false or inaccurate information? Have you ever been to Roanoke and visited Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to see the stained glass window dedicated to Jackson by the Black pastor who honors Jackson for his many contributions?
http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html (http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html)

For the record, I do not read neo-Confederate comic books but am curious as to whether you are still reading the Lincoln comics?

I think you've just demonstrated my point. Removing Robert E. Lee's name from the uniforms of Richmond area scouts isn't "demonization." It may just be another example of the "South" moving on beyond the "Confederacy." As you know, the demographics of the city have changed a lot in the last century and a half, as demonstrated by the election of Wilder and the raising of Arthur Ashe's statue.

Really, if you don't stop seeing other people's celebration of their heroes and cultures as attacks on your own, you will continue to be very unhappy about things that you don't need to be unhappy about, and can do nothing at all to stop.

The silly part about "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend" is the obvious: he may have broken the law by teaching a few people to read (which would be interesting to see an original source for -- it has the air of the apocryphal about it), but he did nothing, and said nothing, about that law. To this day he remains best known for the more dramatic and effective actions he took to uphold the society that kept those people in bondage. Taking all of his actions together, praising him for a reading lesson seems a bit like praising Eichmann for letting the inmates form an orchestra.

It reminds me of the stories of Mary Lee getting into trouble for violating Virginia's Jim Crow laws by refusing to send her maid to the back of the bus. It wasn't that she thought her maid was equal -- she just couldn't see the sense of a law that would separate a lady from her servant. :)

tompritchett
10-27-2009, 11:17 PM
To this day he remains best known for the more dramatic and effective actions he took to uphold the society that kept those people in bondage. Taking all of his actions together, praising him for a reading lesson seems a bit like praising Eichmann for letting the inmates form an orchestra.

I am sure that there are many who would argue that Jackson's actions were probably more about defending his home state of Virginia from invading Northern Armies than wishing to keep any race in bondage. Yes, by defending Virginia he was defending a Confederacy initially formed to perpetuate the institution of slavery, but the consequences of his actions may not been his primary motivation for his actions. As far as the Eichmann analogy, I think you have definitely crossed the line with that one. A better analogy might have been when the U.S. condemed Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to overthrow the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge. We were denouncing the invasion of one country by another (one who happened to be a Communist nation with close ties with the Soviet Union) but, as a consequence, we were indirectly thereby supporting the Khmer Rouge - a regime that probably comes closest the Nazis in terms of modern evil. Regardless of what our government's motivations were in opposing Vietnam's invasion, I can feel fairly confident it was not because we supported the genecide that Pol Pot was carrying out on his own people. But when you mistake consequences with actual motivations, that would indeed be the logical conclusion regarding our reasons for opposing the invasion.

Pvt Schnapps
10-28-2009, 01:17 PM
I am sure that there are many who would argue that Jackson's actions were probably more about defending his home state of Virginia from invading Northern Armies than wishing to keep any race in bondage. Yes, by defending Virginia he was defending a Confederacy initially formed to perpetuate the institution of slavery, but the consequences of his actions may not been his primary motivation for his actions. As far as the Eichmann analogy, I think you have definitely crossed the line with that one. A better analogy might have been when the U.S. condemed Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to overthrow the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge. We were denouncing the invasion of one country by another (one who happened to be a Communist nation with close ties with the Soviet Union) but, as a consequence, we were indirectly thereby supporting the Khmer Rouge - a regime that probably comes closest the Nazis in terms of modern evil. Regardless of what our government's motivations were in opposing Vietnam's invasion, I can feel fairly confident it was not because we supported the genecide that Pol Pot was carrying out on his own people. But when you mistake consequences with actual motivations, that would indeed be the logical conclusion regarding our reasons for opposing the invasion.

I cop to a provocative statement, but whether we consider it over the line depends on lot on individual perspective. Where I live there are a large number of folks who would have no problem comparing slavery with the holocaust. It's a much smaller number who would associate the United States with the Cambodian holocaust, but more than zero and, in any case, no one considers our support of the Kmer Rouge as a Cause worth honoring. And certainly we denounced the killing fields when we found out about them -- I don't know that Jackson ever denounced slavery.

Speaking of Jackson, I'm now trying to figure out what he did believe. VMI has many of his letters at http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=4931, but the wartime ones don't seem to say anything about his motivations. I've seen sites that address his founding of a Sunday school for blacks in the fall of 1855, but when I look in his correspondence of that period I find things like this, from October 6 to his sister, which reads in part:

"Cousin Wm. has advised him to go elsewhere and he is going to look at the lands of Johnson Country. He expresses himself pleased with the country and I hope that he may do well. I do not want him to go into a free state if it can be avoided for he would probably become an abolitionist and then in the event of trouble between the N & S he would stand on one side and we on the opposite."

This doesn't sound like someone who was basically against slavery and only took up arms to defend his home state. This sounds like someone who had been ready to fight for the institution years before war actually broke out.

PVTStalls
10-28-2009, 11:30 PM
If you wore the Bonnie Blue flag, nobody would know what it was or what it meant, such is the state of ignorance of American History in the public schools.

I agree with you sir... my girl friend had a bonnie blue flag license plate on her car.... i choose to have the stars and bars to represent the army of northern va on mine.. people on many occassions have called me a racists and told her that "they were a dallas cowboys fan too". Thus proving the ignorance in America today.:(

Blockade Runner
10-30-2009, 08:29 AM
:confused:

Candidly, your dime store psychological assessment that it is not about them reflects only your perception of individuals of whom you have no knowledge. As such , your supposed insight is not only meaningless but presumptuous. While on the subject, there is a certain arrogance and smugness reflected in your condescending remarks that, in my view, is inappropriate for intellectual discussions. However, if engaging in personal attacks satisfies some deeply rooted psychological need, then by all means continue.

As to your living in Virginia and not being aware of attempts to demonize Confederate leaders, you need to pay more attention. As a simple illustration, why is there no longer a Central Virginia Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/national-briefing-south-virginia-boy-scouts-drop-robert-e-lee.html)

While on the subject, have you actually read "Stonewall Jackson -- the Black Man's Friend" and found false or inaccurate information? Have you ever been to Roanoke and visited Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church to see the stained glass window dedicated to Jackson by the Black pastor who honors Jackson for his many contributions?
http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html (http://richmondthenandnow.com/Newspaper-Articles/Stonewall.html)

For the record, I do not read neo-Confederate comic books but am curious as to whether you are still reading the Lincoln comics?

Rebel Bugler...don't you understand???.. Legitimate, logical arguements/responses need not apply concerning some folks on this forum. There's ALWAYS a crass rebuttal. Even if you assert something as innocuous as the sky is blue and the grass is green, some individuals, (you know who you are), will say the sky is grey and the grass is beige. I've found that it's generally best to leave those folks to their own misguided, delusional perspectives;)

bob 125th nysvi
11-01-2009, 07:41 PM
burned at the stake but a couple of points here:

1) Under aged (sub-18 ) do not have "rights" in the sense an adult citizen has rights. A citizen has rights because they also have an obligation. Under aged residents of the US don't have obligations the way an adult citizen has. The "rights" (all too frequently mis-identified as such) they have are actually obligations for the adults in this country to observe. For example a minor does not have the 'right' to co-habitate with another person without guardian consent. A minor does not have a "right" to not be abused but society and adults have an obligation to see that minors are not abused.

2) It is a long standing concept that the right of freedom of speech is not unrestricted. The famous example being you can not yell fire in a crowded theater.

3) The right of a school administration to set 'reasonable' rules for the conduct of students has been long established an enshrined in law.

4) The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any case it does not think is worthy of its attention. Even the lowest court in the land has the right to try or not try a case based on the pre-trial motions and filings.

As much as I see general bans of this nature as being preemptive and unfair, I can also see the school administration's point of view on this. If it allows a CSA Flag, why not a Nazi, Soviet or Japanese WWII Flag? Some may argue that the CSA is an American flag but it actually isn't. It was a flag raised by rebellious individuals in opposition to the duly elected government.

We also don't know if the school has had some incident where a skinhead/neo-nazi teen was smashing another student's head against a locker because he was a 'n*##$&', not-white, didn't speak English well or heck was Roman Catholic, while wearing the flag.

There is a simple solution for the voters of the district. If they believe the policy is wrong then elect a new school board that agrees with them and will institute new rules.

As a private citizen on private property the court (nor your local government) can not do anything to stop you from flying the flag. And courts have ruled that all over the country.

But when your on public property, then your local institution is well with in it's legal rights to set the rules.

sbl
11-02-2009, 09:08 AM
Good points and true. Liberty is great and so is getting along in a peaceful society. We police our own kids so the school doesn't have too but all kids aren't that "lucky."

Twenty five years ago the Unification Church moved to Gloucester and started their own fishing business. "Shoot a Moonie!" T-shirts appeared with a logo of the Gloucester Fisherman with an Asian "happy face" over his butt and were worn by Kids and some of the local adult "brain trust." There were shots at the group residence reported.

bob 125th nysvi
11-11-2009, 06:17 PM
the word liberal and my name in the same sentence to anyone who knew me they'd think you were nuts. The only thing I'm liberal about is sex.

No I just hate the way that terms have been misused over the years and meaning have become blurred because we want them to or we're too lazy to fight the corruption.

I once heard a line in a Sci-Fi series that clearly states the problem.: "If you can not say what you mean how can you mean what you say?"

sbl
11-11-2009, 06:48 PM
the word liberal and my name in the same sentence to anyone who knew me they'd think you were nuts. The only thing I'm liberal about is sex......."

That and freedom to smoke dope would make you a Libertarian.

MDRebCAv
11-13-2009, 08:41 AM
I agree with you sir... my girl friend had a bonnie blue flag license plate on her car.... i choose to have the stars and bars to represent the army of northern va on mine.. people on many occassions have called me a racists and told her that "they were a dallas cowboys fan too". Thus proving the ignorance in America today.:(

I have many reenacting friends in all reenactor catagories and colors...one of them is a Confedaerate reenactor in PA. He needed some medical care so he drove down here to Baltimore to go to Johns Hopkins and after his appointment he decided to visit the Naval Academy in Annapolis (this was in fact prior to 9-11). He pulled up to the guard and the Marine snapped to attention and waved him through. He wondered why he got a salute but pulled on through the gate.

After he spent some time there he returned to his car and noticed what had happend: his front license plate was the Bonny Blue Flag!

sbl
11-13-2009, 09:04 AM
Yep, a United States Marine saluting a vanity plate.

Maybe he thought the guy was Somali diplomat.

http://www.internationaleducationmedia.com/images/somalia_flag.jpg



;) ("WINK!")

hendrickms24
11-13-2009, 05:09 PM
I have many reenacting friends in all reenactor catagories and colors...one of them is a Confedaerate reenactor in PA. He needed some medical care so he drove down here to Baltimore to go to Johns Hopkins and after his appointment he decided to visit the Naval Academy in Annapolis (this was in fact prior to 9-11). He pulled up to the guard and the Marine snapped to attention and waved him through. He wondered why he got a salute but pulled on through the gate.

After he spent some time there he returned to his car and noticed what had happend: his front license plate was the Bonny Blue Flag!

The Guard or MP may have been doing a Wave thru / Salute. When I was in the service the MP would do this kind of wave through which also was a salute so they would never miss saluting an officer.

hendrickms24
11-13-2009, 05:15 PM
I have many reenacting friends in all reenactor catagories and colors...one of them is a Confedaerate reenactor in PA. He needed some medical care so he drove down here to Baltimore to go to Johns Hopkins and after his appointment he decided to visit the Naval Academy in Annapolis (this was in fact prior to 9-11). He pulled up to the guard and the Marine snapped to attention and waved him through. He wondered why he got a salute but pulled on through the gate.

After he spent some time there he returned to his car and noticed what had happend: his front license plate was the Bonny Blue Flag!

The Guard or MP may have been doing a Wave thru / Salute. When I was in the service the MP would do this kind of wave through which also was a salute so they would never miss saluting an officer.

50th vice pres
11-28-2009, 12:23 AM
That and freedom to smoke dope would make you a Libertarian.

freedom to smoke dope makes a person a Libertarian?? I thought it only made a person stupid, lazy, unhealthy, and really, really stink bad!

WILD WES
11-28-2009, 12:55 AM
lincolnsguard, Its a great idea just to adopt a new flag to wear, however, its a matter of principle. Whats to keep them from banning the new flags? Especially when their phony arguments and excuses can hold up all the way to the supreme court.

DulcimerPlayer
11-28-2009, 02:27 AM
By all the folks using medical marijuana, maybe they will have a ADA grounds for complaint?

sbl
11-28-2009, 08:11 AM
freedom to smoke dope makes a person a Libertarian?? I thought it only made a person stupid, lazy, unhealthy, and really, really stink bad!


I worked with a Libertarian for 7 years. A very open minded man about such things as drugs and sex. A Vietnam era veteran as well. He used to bring in his REASON magazines for me to read.