Confederate flag dress gets teen booted from prom

[PurplePride92]

I thought she got in trouble because the school warned her not to wear it. Should schools not be allowed to establish a dress code if it isn't constitutional?

[Habib]

Why don't more German-Americans wear swastikas? Do we not have pride in our heritage?

 

I've always found the whole "states rights" argument to be a weak one, personally, because those states were crying for their rights so they could continue a system of enslaving an entire population of people, unabated.

 

Not to mention they were livid with the northern states because they didn't enforce fugitive slave laws or recognize slaves as property. "States rights" so long as it enforced slavery.

[75center]

Attending the prom is a privlege, not a right. The school has every right to control the environment. Don't like it, don't go. She was warned so she has nothing to complain about.

[PurplePride92]

Attending the prom is a privlege, not a right. The school has every right to control the environment. Don't like it, don't go. She was warned so she has nothing to complain about.

 

I agree 100%.

[leatherneck]

Not to mention they were livid with the northern states because they didn't enforce fugitive slave laws or recognize slaves as property. "States rights" so long as it enforced slavery.

 

Fugitive slave laws, I might add, that had been enacted by Congress but not aggressively enforced in many cases by the Federal govt and often times ignored by northern states thus causing the southern states to look at the Federal govt very suspiciously. Fact is the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 required the Federal govt to enforce the return of fugitive slaves. It may have been a terrible law, but it was still the law. If you are from the South, you look at that episode as: our Congressional representatives negotiated heavily over the FSL of 1850 and made many compromises. A law gets enacted yet the Federal govt doesn't enforce it and allows northern states to ignore it. So much for being part of a united govt. structure.

 

I'm curious: how many of the posters that think the whole state's right defense is a bunch of malarkey have actually lived in the South (and Tennessee is not the South) for more than a couple of years. I mean the deep South.

 

One final point in this post: assuming for argument purposes that the Stars and Bars at the time of the Civil War stood for nothing other than supporting a govt that was racist and it's only issue was to preserve slavery. Is it possible that the Stars and Bars can stand for something to some people today that is different than what it stood for 150 years ago?

[leatherneck]

Attending the prom is a privlege, not a right. The school has every right to control the environment. Don't like it, don't go. She was warned so she has nothing to complain about.

 

I think you're probably right; then again in this day and age I can see a school rule that prevents a girl from wearing a tux or running for Prom King, or a guy wearing a dress or running for Prom Queen being shot down by the court system

[Habib]

Fugitive slave laws, I might add, that had been enacted by Congress but not aggressively enforced in many cases by the Federal govt and was often times ignored by northern states thus causing the southern states to look at the Federal govt very suspiciously. Fact is the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 required the Federal govt to enforce the return of fugitive slaves. It may have been a terrible law, but it was still the law. If you are from the South, you look at that episode as: our Congressional representatives negotiated heavily over the FSL of 1850 and made many compromises. A law gets enacted yet the Federal govt doesn't enforce it and allows northern states to ignore it. So much for being part of a united govt. structure.

 

But that's why they seceded. They didn't think the federal government had a right to tell them what they could or could not do regarding slavery. It's the same argument the northern states were making when they didn't want enforce laws they found morally repugnant. The Northern states were also doing other things within their borders that worked against slavery that the Southern states did not like and wanted squelched. And with the election of a president sympathetic to the abolitionists, as the secession statement from South Carolina that you posted explains, the balance of power in the federal government was shifting away from the South and slavery could no longer be protected. In fact, that document is explicit that slavery is the reason for secession.

 

One final point in this post: assuming for argument purposes that the Stars and Bars at the time of the Civil War stood for nothing other than supporting a govt that was racist and it's only issue was to preserve slavery. Is it possible that the Stars and Bars can stand for something to some people today that is different than what it stood for 150 years ago?

 

I don't think everyone or even most of those who wave the Confederate flag are racists or support slavery. But, on the other hand, they are at best willfully misinformed and stubbornly ignore its history. I'm not sure that's a lot better. It's inextricable with the Civil War and the Southern cause. Its symbolism is clear. If representing Southern heritage is so important, why is their only symbol a flag of an enemy of the United States? Does "Southern heritage" not extend beyond those four years?

[PurplePride92]

I lived in Statesboro, Georgia for 2 years of my high school life. It is located 45 minutes east of Savannah and home to Gerogia Southern University. Is that deep enough south?

[Jim Schue]

We'll just agree to disagree on the state rights argument.

 

Why don't more German Americans wear the swastikas? Can't answer that question with certainty, but hopefully it's because most of them feel it stands for the wrong thing. But the issue is: should people be allowed to wear the swastika if they wanted to as opposed to being banned from the wearing of it because it is offensive.

 

The problem is there are too many folks who trot out the "heritage, not hate" argument, failing to acknowledge, or even more insulting, feigning innocence while acting as though they didn't know that the Stars'n'Bars is something that signals "run like the dickens" to black folks.

 

It stands for slavery. Simple as that. Any other application is just selective memory and/or a boneheaded willingness to ignore reality outside their own little white-bred world.

 

Since you've been a strong supporter of the freedom of speech and expression in the past, I'm somewhat surprised at your take on this issue.

 

Don't we have the right to be offensive in this country by expressing opinions that are opposed to the majority thinking?

 

They can wear it all they want, the way neo-Nazis do with the symbols of 1933-45 Germany. What they don't get enough of is people calling them out and shaming them for their spitting in the face of a whole segment of the population, rubbing that stupid flag in black folks' noses.

[Jim Schue]

Wasn't the swasitka a party symbol and not a country's symbol?

 

Once that party came into power it became the country's symbol.

[Hatz]

 

I'm curious: how many of the posters that think the whole state's right defense is a bunch of malarkey have actually lived in the South (and Tennessee is not the South) for more than a couple of years. I mean the deep South.

 

One final point in this post: assuming for argument purposes that the Stars and Bars at the time of the Civil War stood for nothing other than supporting a govt that was racist and it's only issue was to preserve slavery. Is it possible that the Stars and Bars can stand for something to some people today that is different than what it stood for 150 years ago?

 

I've lived in Virginia for 21 years now. We aren't the "Deep South" but we are the battleground for this conflict. Most avoid the slavery question to easily, just as they avoid segregation here.

 

I'm certain it can mean something different than the originators. But the vast majority of those who support the "Heritage" vision tend to look at that history through the lens of Margaret Mitchell and "Gone With the Wind" IMO.

 

Just my take. :thumb:

[True blue (and gold)]

I think you're probably right; then again in this day and age I can see a school rule that prevents a girl from wearing a tux or running for Prom King, or a guy wearing a dress or running for Prom Queen being shot down by the court system

 

There is a pretty big difference between this example and the dress in question. The school (I assume) didn't allow anyone to wear Confederate flag attire. Allowing some to wear dresses or tuxes and not others would be discriminatory.

[PurplePride92]

I'll never understand how people can try to rationalize that the Confederate flag doesn't mean what it does. Blows my mind.

[leatherneck]

But that's why they seceded. They didn't think the federal government had a right to tell them what they could or could not do regarding slavery. It's the same argument the northern states were making when they didn't want enforce laws they found morally repugnant. The Northern states were also doing other things within their borders that worked against slavery that the Southern states did not like and wanted squelched. And with the election of a president sympathetic to the abolitionists, as the secession statement from South Carolina that you posted explains, the balance of power in the federal government was shifting away from the South and slavery could no longer be protected. In fact, that document is explicit that slavery is the reason for secession.

 

 

 

I don't think everyone or even most of those who wave the Confederate flag are racists or support slavery. But, on the other hand, they are at best willfully misinformed and stubbornly ignore its history. I'm not sure that's a lot better. It's inextricable with the Civil War and the Southern cause. Its symbolism is clear. If representing Southern heritage is so important, why is their only symbol a flag of an enemy of the United States? Does "Southern heritage" not extend beyond those four years?

 

I totally agree that the southern States that the decision on slavery was a matter for the states to decide. To the extent the Federal govt was going to have a "say" on the matter (i.e. enact laws dealing with slaves running away to other states and the resulting FSA being enacted) the laws enacted by Congress weren't even enforced by the Federal govt. Again, why would a southern State want to remain in the union if the laws enacted by the union pertaining to slaves weren't going to be enforced? Slavery was wrong and those southern States advocating slavery were likewise wrong. But the law at the time of secession allowed slavery in the states but the Federal govt wasn't enforcing its own laws. Was that right? Should the federal govt allow states to ignore laws that the states disagree with? Did Lincoln or any prior President send military forces into those northern states that weren't enforcing the FSA? Was the federal govt doing anything to require compliance? If not and you are the governor or major political leader of a southern State, you don't ask yourself: what good is it to be part of the US and participate in the federal govt process if the federal govt isn't going to force states to comply with federal laws that such states disagree with?

 

For those that don't know (and I'm confident that you do) the South was not the first group of states to discuss seceding from the US. 50 years earlier the New England states seriously proposed seceding over state rights issues and the federal govt's administration of the War of 1812. Heck, the State of Massachusetts even sent their own emissary to Britian to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Britain, which was treason.

 

Too many people think the "state rights" issue is some cockamanie thing created just to justify the the effort of the South to continue slavery. The fact is the state rights debate had blown long and hard since the Revolutionary War, with many states, both northern and southern, feeling the federal govt had long trampled state rights.

[History]

I totally agree that the southern States that the decision on slavery was a matter for the states to decide. To the extent the Federal govt was going to have a "say" on the matter (i.e. enact laws dealing with slaves running away to other states and the resulting FSA being enacted) the laws enacted by Congress weren't even enforced by the Federal govt. Again, why would a southern State want to remain in the union if the laws enacted by the union pertaining to slaves weren't going to be enforced? Slavery was wrong and those southern States advocating slavery were likewise wrong. But the law at the time of secession allowed slavery in the states but the Federal govt wasn't enforcing its own laws. Was that right? Should the federal govt allow states to ignore laws that the states disagree with? Did Lincoln or any prior President send military forces into those northern states that weren't enforcing the FSA? Was the federal govt doing anything to require compliance? If not and you are the governor or major political leader of a southern State, you don't ask yourself: what good is it to be part of the US and participate in the federal govt process if the federal govt isn't going to force states to comply with federal laws that such states disagree with?

 

For those that don't know (and I'm confident that you do) the South was not the first group of states to discuss seceding from the US. 50 years earlier the New England states seriously proposed seceding over state rights issues and the federal govt's administration of the War of 1812. Heck, the State of Massachusetts even sent their own emissary to Britian to negotiate a separate peace treaty with Britain, which was treason.

 

Too many people think the "state rights" issue is some cockamanie thing created just to justify the the effort of the South to continue slavery. The fact is the state rights debate had blown long and hard since the Revolutionary War, with many states, both northern and southern, feeling the federal govt had long trampled state rights.

 

Preach on Leatherneck! How right you are. People have a very selective view of the humble beginnings of our nation. States rights were a hugely important component to the nation being formed, hence the name United States of America.