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.

 

Regarding the state's rights issue, I still see it as contradictory to simultaneously assert that the federal government is not doing a good enough job in bending states to its will (enforcement of fugitive slave laws by northern states, prohibiting the freedom allowed to black persons in the north, policing the underground railroad, etc.) and that the federal government has no right to tell states how to operate within their borders (the issue of slavery).

 

I agree with you that, if you take a moral relativistic position, that it was logical for the Southern states to secede - they weren't getting what they wanted from the federal government and in short order the powers of the federal government were going to be used against them. But, that doesn't mean that the protection of slavery wasn't the single, overriding concern for the Southerners and their Confederacy.

 

This is why I do not believe one can make the "states' rights" claim when waving the Confederate flag without invoking the cause of slavery. They were inextricable during that time. That doesn't mean anyone who asserts the issue of states' rights agrees with slavery or that it is a "cockamamie" issue in general terms. But, when your choice of symbol for states' rights is a relic from the period when the people who claimed states' rights for the explicit purpose of protecting slavery then you aren't going to be able to avoid appearing as a proponent of their cause.

Regarding the state's rights issue, I still see it as contradictory to simultaneously assert that the federal government is not doing a good enough job in bending states to its will (enforcement of fugitive slave laws by northern states, prohibiting the freedom allowed to black persons in the north, policing the underground railroad, etc.) and that the federal government has no right to tell states how to operate within their borders (the issue of slavery).

 

I agree with you that, if you take a moral relativistic position, that it was logical for the Southern states to secede - they weren't getting what they wanted from the federal government and in short order the powers of the federal government were going to be used against them. But, that doesn't mean that the protection of slavery wasn't the single, overriding concern for the Southerners and their Confederacy.

 

This is why I do not believe one can make the "states' rights" claim when waving the Confederate flag without invoking the cause of slavery. They were inextricable during that time. That doesn't mean anyone who asserts the issue of states' rights agrees with slavery or that it is a "cockamamie" issue in general terms. But, when your choice of symbol for states' rights is a relic from the period when the people who claimed states' rights for the explicit purpose of protecting slavery then you aren't going to be able to avoid appearing as a proponent of their cause.

 

So where we end up is agreeing to disagree on what the Stars and Bars symbolize. Which shouldn't be all that surprising. Symbols rarely mean the same thing to everyone. If I may, I think you see what it represented when it was created; I see what I think of the South today.

 

But I will say, and I mean this sincerely, that I appreciate the mature and professional responses and posts you have made in this thread. Once again, it has been a pleasure exchanging ideas and thoughts with you.

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

I believe over time it has evolved to racial undertones. My main point in shuttering every time I see it. At one point not as much (I suspect and hope). I hate that because whether what the Confederacy was fighting for was right or wrong, they still comprise a lot of our ancestors and to denounce them all rubs me the wrong way too.

I believe over time it has evolved to racial undertones. My main point in shuttering every time I see it. At one point not as much (I suspect and hope). I hate that because whether what the Confederacy was fighting for was right or wrong, they still comprise a lot of our ancestors and to denounce them all rubs me the wrong way too.

 

So the people are inseparable from the cause they were fighting for?

 

And again, as someone else asked, aren't there better ways of showing pride and heritage than rubbing a racist symbol in people's faces? Did nothing to be proud of ever happen in the South outside of 1861-65?

 

 

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.

 

Others threatened it: (See John C. Calhoun vs. Andrew Jackson) but, they had not followed through with secession.

 

The Confederate states did follow through with it. By means of force and arms. I don't recall a Massachusetts militia firing on a Federal garrison or army.

 

In my opinion, that is the biggest difference. :thumb:

So the people are inseparable from the cause they were fighting for?

 

In a lot of people's eyes, yes.

So where we end up is agreeing to disagree on what the Stars and Bars symbolize. Which shouldn't be all that surprising. Symbols rarely mean the same thing to everyone. If I may, I think you see what it represented when it was created; I see what I think of the South today.

 

But I will say, and I mean this sincerely, that I appreciate the mature and professional responses and posts you have made in this thread. Once again, it has been a pleasure exchanging ideas and thoughts with you.

 

I appreciate that and agree likewise. I always enjoy a good discussion.

 

I believe over time it has evolved to racial undertones. My main point in shuttering every time I see it. At one point not as much (I suspect and hope). I hate that because whether what the Confederacy was fighting for was right or wrong, they still comprise a lot of our ancestors and to denounce them all rubs me the wrong way too.

 

Can we admit some things in the past were wrong without being loathing of our ancestors? I don't think we should disregard our history, but I think we should acknowledge when they got things wrong and try to avoid those same mistakes. I'm a proud American, but I will readily admit our country's past mistakes and advocate for what I think will make it better.

 

 

 

Can we admit some things in the past were wrong without being loathing of our ancestors? I don't think we should disregard our history, but I think we should acknowledge when they got things wrong and try to avoid those same mistakes. I'm a proud American, but I will readily admit our country's past mistakes and advocate for what I think will make it better.

 

Easily. And that has been my point all along.

In a lot of people's eyes, yes.

 

I think that's kind of sad, really, that their sense of self-worth is so low that they cannot divorce themselves from a losing and deplorable cause.

What if she had shown up in a dress that celebrated the Cherokee Nation, or what if it had been in San Antonio and she had worn a Mexican flag dress? Both ethnic groups fought American troops on what is now American soil, would that have been different?

What if she had shown up in a dress that celebrated the Cherokee Nation, or what if it had been in San Antonio and she had worn a Mexican flag dress? Both ethnic groups fought American troops on what is now American soil, would that have been different?

 

Actually I think the Cherokee were one of the few tribes that fought more in the courts (and won), only to have Andrew Jackson's US soldiers still deport them to Oklahoma. They were nicknamed among another four as "The Five Civilized Tribes."

 

Now if we are talking Shawnee at a Boonsboro dance, or Creek at a Fort Mims, Alabama Dance - well then you've got a good point. :lol: :thumb:

What if she had shown up in a dress that celebrated the Cherokee Nation, or what if it had been in San Antonio and she had worn a Mexican flag dress? Both ethnic groups fought American troops on what is now American soil, would that have been different?

 

Yes. I don't think there are any more flags that stir up the emotions of people like the confederate flag does. For the most part people are tolerant towards different ethnic groups and their expression but most people aren't tolerant of rednecks and redneck expression.

Who knows...mom might have made the dress for her.

Took it right from over the mantle and sewed that cat right on the spot.

First, I agree that if she was told not to do it, the school has the right to enforce their own version of dress code.

Second, I am from the south, and I don't think the confederate flag means that much anymore. Maybe tied to the exhaust of mudbuggy in one of those mud pit races.

Lastly, if you can't parade around with the confederate flag, then you can't parade around with a Malcolm X tshirt, a homosexual symbol, a swastika, etc.

What if she had shown up in a dress that celebrated the Cherokee Nation, or what if it had been in San Antonio and she had worn a Mexican flag dress? Both ethnic groups fought American troops on what is now American soil, would that have been different?

 

That depends on what is in the school dress code or whether the student was told beforehand not to wear the attire in question.