No, they just owned them.
There was this little place called Fort Sumter which the Confederates decided to attack and start a war that you might have heard of.
Again, the Confederacy fired first and started the war. Claiming that the South wanted independence, or fought for states rights or the war was fought because of different economic systems are all just dodging the issue. Why did they want independence? To keep slaves. What state right were they fighting for? The right to keep slaves. What was the difference in the economic system? Slaves. The “War of Southern Treason” was started by the South to preserve slavery.
If responding to Southern assaults on Federal arsenals and the Southern attack on Fort Sumter qualifies as “Northern Aggression” then yes, that line of thinking is correct, assuming “correct” means “ludicrously delusional”.
Personally I’m for maximal freedom of expression in schools whenever possible. And in this case, if having Confederate flag decals on student vehicles results in more classroom discussion about what those decals mean and the history behind them, resulting in alleviation of ignorance about the Civil War and its origins, then it’s a good thing.
Wow, I think I actually agree with Der Thihs. How did that happen?
As for the idea that it just stands for the South or something, then why pick that? Why choose the thing that was specifically designed for the “I’m down with the slavery” camp? Some kids may not know what it means now, but that doesn’t mean that the association is removed. What do you think of if you see the hammer and sickle?
Pissing off the man, man.
I’m sorry, but it is tres chic these days to assert that the Civil War was all about slavery, and the men who headed the Confederacy were evil, and the whole concept of what happened was about being racist. This sort of revisionist history paints the Republican Party as the savior of the “black” man in the South, and makes out the Union forces as the avenging sword of God. It’s a nice rant, but it’s not correct.
Yes, slavery was an important issue, even the paramount issue. Absent the unwillingness to yield up their slaves, the Civil War would never have happened. Had sufficient people in the South been willing to give in to the tide of moral thought on the issue, our country would have been spared a very difficult and bloody chapter in its history.
But to jump from this concept to the idea that the Civil War was about racism is to ignore a particularly compelling fact: the people of the North were every bit as racist as the people of the South. While they disagreed with the notion of slavery, they had absolutely NO intention of integrating into their society the freed masses of African slaves that had been brought over. And subsequent history has proven that the states of the North housed just as much anti-“black” feeling as the states of the South, if one talks about feelings based on “race.” Indeed, it is not abundantly clear what the President we all look up to (Lincoln) actually intended to DO about having this huge mass of freed “black” slaves suddenly loose in the country. What indications we do have show that he was just as willing to see them deported to some other location if at all possible. So much for the idea that the war was fought about race.
Now, in the years subsequent to the Civil War, have the symbols of the Confederacy, including the Confederate Battle Flag, acquired some different connotation? Quite possibly so. I live now in the South, having grown up in the West, and having lived in the North (Midwest) for some time. Certainly it may be the case that the average African-American here in the South sees that symbol as an indication of racist ideas, regardless of what some particular individual intends by displaying it. Since I’m not African-American, I’m not qualified to judge that. But I do know that, if indeed the flag in question has acquired that symbolism, to the essential exclusion of all other symbolism, then that is a recent development, relatively speaking.
Two kids, after being told by the principal (he’s your pal!) they couldn’t, displayed a confederate flag on school premises. I’m not sure if it was a T Shirt, or what. But the principal then suspended them. In true American fashion, the kids sued the school district. The court found that a ban on Confederate symbols on school property did not violate the student’s First Amendment rights to be complete pricks.
As to the “the confederate symbols aren’t racist”, the court said:
"The real difference of opinion in this case, of course, is whether the symbol should be considered “vulgar and offensive” at all. That is, some say the symbol is not offensive if not intended to be offensive. Others say it is innately offensive, while still others argue that, even if the symbol is not intended to be offensive or innately offensive, it is still dangerous because it is perceived as offensive by so many people.
This debate, which is being played out in state legislatures, newspaper editorial columns and classrooms across the South is exemplified in the expert witness disclosures offered by the two sides in this case. The plaintiffs’ experts plan to testify that “the Confederate battle flag is not a symbol of racism, but rather a historical symbol embodying the philosophical and political principals of a decentralized form of government in which states and local government retain all powers not expressly ceded to the centralized federal government under the constitution” and that thus the flag is merely “a symbol of southern heritage.” (Disclosure of proposed expert Marshall DeRosa, PhD, doc. 19). The defendant’s expert plans to testify that “from its inception, the confederacy was a political movement dedicated to the preservation of the institution of slavery. Therefore from its inception, the confederacy and its symbols represented approval of white supremacy” and that “the confederate flag is a symbol that has acquired numerous racist associations to the point that the flag itself has understandably come to be perceived as a racist symbol.” (Disclosure of proposed expert Fitz Brundage, PhD, doc. 24).
The problem, of course, is that both of them are correct. And they are correct not only in describing the different emotions this symbol evokes, but also in connoting the depth of those emotions through their choice of words. Words like “symbol”, “heritage”, “racism”, “power”, “slavery”, and “white supremacy” are highly emotionally charged and reveal that for many, perhaps most, this is not merely an intellectual discourse. Real feelings-strong feelings-are involved. It is not only constitutionally allowable for school officials to closely contour the range of expression children are permitted regarding such volatile issues, it is their duty to do so. …
In light of the above principles, the Court finds that the ban on the display of Confederate symbols was not unconstitutional. School officials presented evidence of racial tensions existing at the school and provided testimony regarding fights which appeared to be racially based in the months leading up to the actions underlying this case. Additionally, one only needs to consult the evening news to understand the concern school administrators had regarding the disruption, hurt feelings, emotional trauma and outright violence which the display of the symbols involved in this case could provoke. Therefore, under both Tinker and Fraser, the school administrators did nothing wrong in banning the display of Confederate flags on school property."
Scott v. School Bd. of Alachua County, 324 F.3d 1246 C.A.11 (Fla.),2003.
I agree with the court.
This is where I disagree with the court. I can’t speak for the constitutionality of their opinion, but it is morally reprehensible to curtail freedom of speech and expression anywhere it isn’t absolutely necessary to prevent physical harm. Restricting the first amendment due to “feelings” – even “strong feelings” and even in a school – is absolutely unconscionable. Obviously I’m in the minority here.
Not really. In my experience, that term is used exclusively tongue-in-cheek. The most common term I’ve heard, aside from “The Civil War” would be “The War Between the States”. I’ve read “The War For Southern Independence” on a couple of plaques.
I’m seeing two completely different standards here:
- You can ban symbols when there is a history of violence related to those symbols at a school.
- You can ban symbols when there’s the possibility of violence related to those symbols at a school.
If the court is saying that a school may ban a symbol if either standard is met, I wholeheartedly disagree: #2 is far too vague to make a good standard, and certainly Tinker v. Des Moines could have been decided otherwise, given such a standard. If the court is saying that both standards must be met before a symbol may be banned, I concur.
But it is also all too common to see people claiming that the war had nothing to do with slavery, or that slavery was just some minor side issue–that it was about “economic issues” (as if slavery, the basis of the Southern economy, wasn’t an “economic issue” to the Southerners) or “cultural issues” (though it is rarely specified which ones). Then those of us who have actually looked into the issue have to point out that, no, the war in fact was all about slavery, and really very little else.
The rest of your attributed “rant” is too simplistic, it’s true, and to point out that slavery was the cause of the war, and the cause which the Confederacy was formed to defend, should not mean simply sliding into “the Union was noble and pure and Lincoln and the Republicans and the Union Army were all ardent crusaders for the perfect equality of all men”. Nor does it mean that we should equate the Confederates with Nazis–though I must say I agree with U.S. Grant, when he said “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.” (Emphasis added.)
But here you go too far. No, the North as a whole was far from perfect or even acceptable on the issue of race. Even many abolitionists were racists. But there is surely a difference between racists who believe that members of the “inferior race” should be enslaved, and racists who believe that members of the “inferior race” should nonetheless be free to live out their lives as best they can. And whatever else they said, members of the abolitionist movement frequently quoted the Declaration of Independence–that “all men are created equal”–they were at least aware of the hypocrisy of the gulf between America’s founding ideals and its reality, and sought somehow to relieve it; while the Confederates came to contemptuously dismiss even the idea that “all men are created equal”.
And after the war, the all-too-often reviled “Radical” Republicans passed, not just one amendment, to do the bare minimum and free the slaves de jure, but three amendments to the U.S. Constitution: Not only were the slaves freed, but all Americans were guaranteed equal rights as citizens, and the freed slaves were guaranteed their political equality as citizens of the Republic. In the end, Reconstruction was betrayed; the Southern whites were too determined to maintain their racial caste system–by violence and terror in many cases–and too many Northern whites were, in the end, indifferent to or hostile to their fellow black Americans, or simply unwilling to force the issue on behalf of those of a different “race”; and (apart from the barest minimum of at least not being slaves anymore), blacks were denied their constitutional rights for another century.
But, as the above shows, it may not be, well, black and white; nonetheless, the Confederate cause and the Civil War were and always have been about race. That the war didn’t simply and neatly end at Appomattox; that it had to be waged by other means for another century, doesn’t mean that the war wasn’t fundamentally about the relation between Americans whose ancestors were born in Europe and Americans whose ancestors were born in Africa.
First, a nitpick. What makes you say slaves were cheaper? They’re more of an up-front cost, but they weren’t free. They could’ve been cheaper, but if you think factory workers weren’t paid crap while the owners sat around sipping lemonade, you’re dreaming.
Second, the economic difference I was hinting at was that the North was rich and industrial, while the South was agricultural and stagnant. These days it’s the coasts/cities that are technological and the center/rural parts that are stagnant. This is what causes the cultural chasm then and now. And I can see how the Confederate flag could be a symbol of that for some proponents, as much as white supremacy for others.
Clearly they were cheaper than workers paid a wage. Southern plantations tried many different revenue models before settling on slavery. Post-civil-war, the Klan formed in large part to force black workers to stay on a single plantation instead of moving from place to place looking for the best-paying work (read The Dispossed: Underclass from the Civil War to the Present for an overview). Certain crops like cotton require a great deal of work at certain times of the year, e.g., harvest, but little work at other times. If you refuse to pay workers except during harvest, workers can demand a premium for their work: at this one time, there’s a scarcity of labor, since everyone’s crop comes in at the same time, and so it’s a laborer’s market. If you pay your workers year-round, then they’re sitting idle for much of the year.
Slavery solves this dilemma. Buy your workers, give them less work for part of the year, and then work them to the bone during the hard parts of the year.
Of course they were cheaper or else it wouldn’t have been done. How ridiculous would you have to be to hate black people so much that you enslave them even though it’s cheaper to just hire somebody legitimately?
So what? It doesn’t matter what materials they were producing. I’m really not sure what point you’re getting at here that will reinforce your original statement of…
One side opposed slavery, the other supported it. The side that supported slavery started a war to keep it. How is it not about racism?
Even in schools? The Supreme Court, and I think most people, recognize that schools are different from other public fora.
"Prior to setting forth the applicable portions of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we note that this First Amendment freedom of expression case stands against the unique backdrop of a public school. Although public school students’ First Amendment rights are not forfeited at the school door, those rights should not interfere with a school administrator’s professional observation that certain expressions have led to, and therefore could lead to, an unhealthy and potentially unsafe learning environment for the children they serve. Short of a constitutional violation based on a school administrator’s unsubstantiated infringementon a student’s speech or other expressions, this Court will not interfere with the administration of a school.
…
First, from the Tinker case, school officials are on their most solid footing when they reasonably fear that certain speech is likely to “appreciably disrupt the appropriate discipline in the school.” Denno, 218 F.3d at 1271, citingTinker, 393 U.S. at 514. Second, from Fraser, even if disruption is not immediately likely, school officials are charged with the duty to “inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government.” To do so, they must have the flexibility to control the tenor and contours of student speech within school walls or on school property, even if such speech does not result in a reasonable fear of immediate disruption. Denno, 218 F.3d at 1271. As the Supreme Court stated in Fraser:
"Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the “fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system” disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the “work of the schools.” Tinker, 393 U.S. at 508, 89 S.Ct. at 737… The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.
The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers–and indeed the older students–demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class."
If you actually look at the data from the 1860 Census, many states that wound up in the Union had more farms per capita than the secessionist states. Of the thirty-three states, the ten with the most farms per capita were all Union; Arkansas comes in eleventh. The USA in the mid-19th Century was all-in-all a pretty rural place. Even now, it’s not like places like Iowa or Nebraska are great centers of manufacturing industry, and in 1860 Michigan was not of course the center of the automobile industry (nor was it part of the post-industrial “Rust Belt”), it was another farm state. Even antebellum New York and New England still had large areas that were pretty bucolic.
Of course the South was overwhelmingly agricultural, in the sense that its economy depended on growing things from the ground. But (although the South had many small subsistence farms dedicated to producing food for those who lived on them and maybe a little for their neighbors), the heart of the Southern economy was a very industrialized sort of agriculture–enormous agricultural factories devoted to producing crops that were commodities bought and sold on a global market–mostly cotton, of course, along with tobacco and some others like indigo. And that factory-agricultural economy was in turn dependent on slavery. The “North” (the Northeast and the Midwest) had a growing industrial sector, but still had a very large agricultural economy, made up of free farmers producing food. The South by contrast to either the Northeast or the Midwest had (in addition to traditional agriculture) factory-farms run on slave labor.
Note that the Confederate state with the most farms per capita, Arkansas, was a Middle South state, slower to secede, where slavery was less overwhelmingly important. The deep, deep South states like Mississippi or South Carolina had scarcely more farms per capita than such places as New Jersey or Massachusetts–presumably dominated by their industrialized “dark Satanic mills”–but the farms that did exist in South Carolina or Mississippi were very big “farms” (and most of the population were slaves on those “farms”). Louisiana came in dead last among the states in farms per capita, ahead only of the desert territory of Nevada–if you knew nothing else but that statistic, you might think the economy of 1860 Louisiana was dependent on mining or manufacturing.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with anything you quoted there. We force these children to spend an inordinate amount of their lives somewhere, often against their will, for the stated purpose of education. Then education should be the priority, not discipline, manners or civility. Unless children are in imminent danger, their speech should not be infringed, even if it is as unpopular as neo-nazism or advocating drugs. I mean there needs to be a legitimate fear of rioting or incitement to violence, or shouting fire in a crowded auditorium before I will condone the restriction of speech. Or else we’re not running a school, but a prison.
I can see minimizing disruptive speech in class, but that’s a time and a place issue. In this case, we’re actively persecuting someone for their ideas.
So you basically look at every school that’s ever existed as a prison? Good luck teaching anything to a group of students that can say whatever they want whenever they want so long as they aren’t threatening violence.
Dr Cube did say “I can see minimizing disruptive speech in class, but that’s a time and a place issue”. But there’s a difference between saying you can’t disrupt algebra class (or even U.S. history class) with your pro-Confederate harangues, and banning bumper stickers on the students’ cars out in the parking lot.
What’s to stop either of these from becoming a heckler’s veto? Can a school ban symbols supportive of gay rights because of the possibility that they may provoke violence by gay-bashers?