Suppress your personality

Here’s a recipe for disaster: Tell high school seniors to “express your personality” in your yearbook photo. A boy at a Milwaukee-area school posed with his shotgun and a Confederate flag. Problems ensued.

About Joanne


  1. Walter Wallis says:

    How about a picture of him emulating a partial birth abortion?

  2. Tell a kid to express himself, then have a fit when he does it. Isn’t that just typical.

  3. Mad Scientist says:

    At least he wasn’t naked.

    Wait, that would have been acceptable.

  4. Bob Diethrich says:

    I bet he wouldn’t get any trouble if he had on his Che Guevera tee shirt. I actually saw one on a kid in the hall and hassled him about wearing a shirt glorifying a criminal and a thug.

    Of course this brain dead little leftie could only stare at me agape.

  5. Richard Brandshaft says:

    I find the Confederate flag more disturbing than the gun. That young man needs help — if it isn’t too late.

    Even more disturbing: I’m the only commentator so far, here and in the comments under the article, to focus on the flag. (The reporter who wrote the article apparently considered the flag almost a footnote. But that’s only to be expected. Reporters are against guns just like conservatives are for involuntary pregnancies.)

  6. Tim Gannon says:


    Are you saying that anyone who flies the Confederate flag needs help?

    Why is flying the Confederate Flag any different than the burning of the American flag?

  7. Richard: Come on. Are you serious? That’s as bad as Los Angeles capitulating to the ACLU and removing a tiny cross from the official city seal.

    God forbid someone gets “hurt feelings”…

  8. Well, he needs better history lessons, for one thing, or at least he needs to stay awake and pay attention during them.

    Most Confederate flag wavers that I’ve encountered know little about the actual Confederacy and would be horrified if they had been somehow dropped in the middle of it.

    Although that in itself might be evidence that the usual meaning of the Confederate flag has changed over the years, that it now represents the modern South rather than the Confederacy. After all, most Southerners consider the South to be something special, and it wouldn’t be too surprising that they adopted a distinctive symbol to represent it. Picking one that Yankees disapprove of is just another way to thumb their noses at Yankees, as far as I can tell.

    Also, since it is the battle flag rather than the national flag, it could be taken to represent not the Confederacy, but its soldiers, who may have fought for the wrong side but demonstrated amazing audacity and skill while doing so.

    What’s interesting is that someone in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (which is well on the frozen side of the Mason-Dixon line) reports “Nowadays, things are different than they were 20 years ago… I see the rebel flag more now than ever.”. Having spent time in Pennsylvania, I also found a surprising number of Confederate flags; given that I was less than a half-hour drive from Gettysburg, I would sooner have expected to see Japanese Empire flags flying in Hawaii (having never been to Hawaii, for all I know there are plenty…)

  9. “I find the Confederate flag more disturbing than the gun. That young man needs help — if it isn’t too late.”

    I had great Grandfathers on opposite sides during the Civil War (from West Virginia). Just as anyone has the right to consider the flag racist, others have the right to think of the flag more as part of U.S. history, or in my case, part of my family history. I guess that puts me on the chopping block for paying reparations.

    On the other hand, I didn’t realize that Wisconsin sent units south to fight for the CSA.

  10. I was sorry to read that Bob could think of nothing to do but “hassle the brain dead little lefty” about wearing the Che Guevera shirt. Sounds like you missed the teachable moment. Better luck next time.

  11. Walter Wallis says:

    We all know, now, that to progressives, freedom of speach is freedom to agree. The stars and bars is shorthand for “Screw you and Hanoi Jane too.”

  12. Bob Diethrich says:


    “Hassle” was an unfortunate term. I did try to engage him, but when it was clear that he had the knowledge and depth of a bird bath I guess it became hassling.

    Its June in Texas and my AC is broken. I’m a bit testy.

  13. The school is clearly in the wrong here. There is nothing wrong with the kid posing with a shotgun which he uses in sport shooting (pointed out in the article). If it had been a baseball bat nothing would have been said.

    As for the flag, it is difficult to say what the boy intended by it without knowing him better. Regardless of his intentions, the school suggested he come up with something that reflected his personality. It appears that he thought carefully and did EXACTLY what they suggested. Since he didn’t pose with things that suggested outlaw (rebel maybe) or other antisocial behavior, telling him his personality is unacceptable is what is unacceptable.

  14. “conservatives are for involuntary pregnancies”

    I have yet to hear of one conservative who favors rape. I have heard of a few groups that are in favor of pedophilia but I don’t know the political association of such groups and somehow I suspect that the vast majority of people would agree that such groups are vile and disgusting and do not represent the mainstream. You cannot truthfully say that all (and I am not sure about most) conservatives are opposed to abortion in the case of rape. Most conservatives actually recognize that there are some cases were a compelling case can be made for abortion, although there would be a lot of disagreement about exactly where the line should be drawn.

    Conservatives tend to favor personal responsibility. If two people decide to engage in an act that is known to occasionally result in pregnancy then those two people should be responsible for the human life they create if that is the result. Most people have a pretty good idea of what causes pregnancy and there are a number of ways to avoid impregnation including some that are actually quite a bit of fun. I could go on about the whole abortion debate but this is neither the time nor the place.

    Your posts are usually very intelligent and well made. I am disappointed that you would try to take such a cheap shot and do so in such a factually challenged way. To make matters worse the comment was not even related to the article being commented on. Abortion is an emotionally charged issue. It is not gentlemanly to grossly misrepresent the view of your opponents. Hopefully it was a lapse in judgment and not a well thought out action.


    PS: When I say “usually very intelligent and well made” I don’t mean that as a slight. There are times when I go back and read my posts and I cringe at the way what I wrote came across. I think most of us who post very much will occasionally have a post we wish we could recall.

  15. Bob, OK, it being June in TX and no air conditioner, I’ll give you a pass on the hassle thing. Lord knows the kids have pushed me over the brink many is the time. But, our job is to deepen that birdbath. Really tough sometimes and sometimes it is just hopeless. All I know to do is to show up the next day and give it a shot. And you never know. I’ve had kids come up to me years later and tell me about some comment that I made that I have long since forgotten, but was an important event to them. Scary responsibility we have isn’t it? Eleven more days here in NH.

  16. dhanson says:

    I don’t have a problem with the shotgun. But that flag…

    I don’t know what the kid meant by the Confederate flag. But when I see a Confederate flag decal on some pick up truck or on somebody’s jacket or whatever, the first thing I think is “there’s a racist.” The second thing I think is “There’s a moron.”

    It may not be right, it may not be fair, it may be just the result of my northern upbringing. But the thoughts come to me anyway.

  17. Roger Sweeny says:

    Bob Diethrich,

    You should have told him, “Right on. Kill a Christian for Communism.”

    Though I suppose he wouldn’t have gotten the allusion.

  18. Walter Wallis says:

    When I see someone react negatively to the stars and bars I automatically say “there goes a well programmed PC automaton.’

  19. dhanson says:

    Okay, Walter. I’m a well programmed PC automaton.

    Can you please explain to me what the people who have the stars and bars decals, mud flaps, embroidery, etc. are trying to say? I ask as someone who has never lived anywhere near the Mason-Dixon line and is willing to bet that the people I see with this symbol haven’t either. So I don’t think it’s pride in their home or to honor Confederate soldiers. What meaning am I missing in my PC reaction?

  20. “conservatives are for involuntary pregnancies”

    Not all conservatives favor a general ban on abortion, let alone contraception.

  21. Sigivald says:

    dhanson: What, southerners never move out of Dixie? Yankees never have southern roots? Come now. That you don’t “think” it’s pride in their home because they’re not in the South at the moment seems to be blindness on your part.

    Like it or not, the Confederate battle flag has become, to many, merely a symbol of Dixie. (To others, of course, it’s also a symbol of racial division… and I mean, those others are using it themselves to mean that. But I doubt they’e the majority, since every time this subject ever comes up, the former far outnumber the latter.)

  22. nobody important says:

    “When I see someone react negatively to the stars and bars I automatically say “there goes a well programmed PC automaton.'”

    As a Yankee with family roots in New England that go back over 200 years, I have an extremely negative reaction to the Confederate Flag, the flag flown by traitors who rose up in armed rebellion against the legitimate government of the US. The dimwits, especially in the North, who continue to adore this wretched symbol baffle me. As others have asked, just what is the message? That aside, since this is a free country, go ahead and fly your flag. Just don’t be surprised and hurt when you get an earful of opprobrium from those who view it as no different than a Nazi flag. (The German soldiers were gallant and brave, too. And it was a part of their culture, blah, blah, blah.)

  23. It’s just something different, out of the mainstream of their surroundings, something with which to tweak fossilized sensibilities.
    These young people flaunt the stars and bars because they know it irritates hyper-rigid types. The knee jerk contingent turns allshades of red white and blue when confronted with such a rebel symbol.

  24. theAmericanist says:

    The Stars and Bars have just two meanings, whatever folks may THINK they communicate with ’em.

    The first is treason. The Confederacy was an attempt to overthrow the freely-elected national government by force, in order to preserve slavery against its own unpopularity. It was NOT an attempt to preserve state sovereignty against Federal power, being as how every single Confederate leader had spent the previous six years trying to use Federal power to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act against the rights of states like Ohio and Minnesota to regard African-Americans as human beings rather than property.

    The second is Jim Crow. The Confederacy didn’t have a national flag, it was a collection of states and it fought accordingly. The Stars and Bars were only revived as a kind of national symbol for white supremacy, e.g., in the South Carolina state flag, as part of massive resistance to desegregation.

    Sure, ignorant folks like to think of the Stars and Bars as honoring their ‘heritage’ — but those two things and ONLY those two things, are what the heritage actually WAS.

    If that kid (or anybody else) thinks otherwise, they oughta ask for their tuition back.

  25. Actually, there are other meanings, including rebellion against reflexive PC mindsets. Provoking a reaction from someone you never respected anyway.
    The rebellion may be misguided, but being misguided is a part of youth.

  26. Cousin Dave says:

    Ken wrote:

    “Most Confederate flag wavers that I’ve encountered know little about the actual Confederacy and would be horrified if they had been somehow dropped in the middle of it.”

    Ken, that’s a very astute observation. Most people, on both sides of the argument, don’t seem to realize that the Confederacy was essentially an elitist creation, formed and funded by agrarians whose basic mission was to try to halt the passage of time (a mission they were doomed to fail at, regardless of the outcome of the war). Anybody who grew up in Tennessee or northern Alabama has heard the term “nickajack”, which was a term used to describe the mountain people (less polite term: hillbillies) who dodged the Confederate draft and fled into the upper reaches of the Appalachians. These people owned no plantations and no slaves and had no more in common with the cotton kings than the Northerners did. At one time some of these folks tried to organize and carve out a neutral free state, but the effort was doomed early on by lack of resources and the likelihood of being surrounded by hostile territory. (It wasn’t the war itself but Reconstruction that totally changed the relationship between the defeated Confederate elites and the mountain people.)

    Now, as for the battle flag: Yes, a lot of people do see it and intend it as a tribute to their heritage and their fallen ancestors. And others do see it as a symbol of the New South. I don’t necessarily disagree, but there are also a lot of people for whom it has acquired negative connotations. (I suppose this has something to do with the KKK, although it doesn’t seem to me that they particularly favored this symbol). The meanings of symbols does sometimes change over time, and this one has changed enough that, whenever it appears in a discussion, it drags the discussion off-topic just like it has dragged this thread off-topic from the original subject of the student’s free expression rights.

    My fellow Southerners, I think we need to let this one go. It’s a fight that doesn’t need to be picked, an I personally am glad that Guy Hunt was able to quietly remove the battle flag from the Alabama Statehouse in the early ’90s. This has saved Alabama a lot of the bad publicity that South Carolina and Georgia have drawn; and I won’t say that those states were wrong, but I’m glad my state did what it did. I’m wiling to concede that the battle flag represents bad things to a significant number of people, and I won’t fly it or display it. There are plenty of other symbols that can honorably represent the South without producing the sideshow that follows the battle flag wherever it goes.

    On the other hand, don’t get me started about the numb-nuts who can’t tell the battle flag and the Alabama state flag apart…

  27. Mark Odell says:

    Ross wrote: I have yet to hear of one conservative who favors rape.

    Need I really explain that he’s referring not to “involuntarily getting pregnant”, but rather “involuntarily staying pregnant”?

    If two people decide to engage in an act that is known to occasionally result in pregnancy then those two people should be responsible for the human life they create if that is the result.

    Yes, but “responsible” to whom?

    dhanson wrote: Can you please explain to me what the people who have the stars and bars decals, mud flaps, embroidery, etc. are trying to say?

    These should get you started, HTH.

    Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag

    Culture Clash

    Bristling Dixie?

    St. Andrew’s Cross

    Tolerance Totalitarians

    The Bland Old Flag

  28. Cousin Dave says:

    Americanist: The Confederacy did indeed have national flags (three during the period of its existence), although they weren’t well standardized. And the Stars and Bars is *not* the battle flag or a variant of it. See:

  29. theAmericanist says:

    LOL — having three “national” flags in four years, none of which was ever accepted by, for example, the governor of Georgia, stretches the definition of “national flag” beyond the elasticity of the fabric, don’t ya think?

    I don’t think it’s a free speech or expressin issue at all. It isn’t that the kid doesn’t have the right to be a knucklehead in public.

    Personally, if I had been the faculty/administrator in charge of the photograph, I’d have spiked it on the grounds that if the kid was THAT ignorant, surely he wasn’t ready to graduate.

    C’mon, folks: the kind of simpleheaded “history” that thinks the Stars and Bars are just “a symbol” of a “heritage” is EXACTLY like folks who teach WW2 as if it was won by the Tuskegee Airmen and the Codetalkers all by themselves, while the U.S. government was busy interning Japanese Americans. It ain’t nothing but political correctness for rednecks.

  30. Everyone keeps talking about the student being stupid. I think the school is stupid for telling its students to “express” their personalities in their pictures. A school’s just asking for trouble when it does that. At the school where I worked a few years ago students could buy pages in the yearbook and dedicate messages to the school, parents, other students, etc. One group of students (about 30) went in together and bought an entire page and had a collage of pictures and personal messages included on it. One of the pictures was a group shot; the others were different members of the group in various poses. Two things got the kids in trouble. 1) They called themselves “The Clan.” 2) In one of the pictures some boys (about seven or eight) were holding guns. In the background was the Confederate Flag. Needless to say, the local television station and the NAACP were called in to “educate” the rednecks. I think what the students did was stupid and misguided, but the aftermath was what disgusted me. Everyone wanted to punish the kids, including some kids who were not even in the pictures. They actually wanted to keep the seniors in the pictures and the seniors on the yearbook staff from graduating. Others wanted all of the yearbooks thrown out, even though most kids had paid for them and the money had been spent. Oddly enough no one pointed a finger at the yearbook advisor who was supposed to approve all content, including ads. He never once (to the best of my knowledge) stepped up to take responsibility. It probably helped that he was a well-liked former coach and the current athletic director. (But I digress…) Anyway, my point (and I do have one) is that instead of pointing a finger at the student, maybe we should be looking at the school. If it told students to express themselves, then it should be willing to face the consequences for its actions. The school owes everyone an apology (if indeed an apology is necessary) as much as the student does.

  31. To add to Cousin Dave: “The Confederate Flag” as we now know it was in fact the naval jack used by the Confederate Navy. The Stars and Bars (the first flag of the Confederacy) was a different flag altogether that had a blue field in the top left with a circle of stars representing each member. It then had three stripe from left to right: red-white-red from top to bottom.

    The Confederate Flag has many meanings. The majority believe it is simply a symbol of racism. This is mostly because it had a revival of sorts as a symbol against civil rights in the 1960s.
    However, the simple fact that this topic always raises conflict shows that peoples opinions differ. Here is one that might surprise:

  32. The student, Tyler Schultz, has relatives in the South who he visits in the summer. In the story, he’s quoted:

    “There are a few minorities in Pewaukee. I talk to all of them. I asked a couple in my grade if they would be offended (by the photo) and they said because it’s you and we know you, we would not be offended,” Schultz said.

  33. theAmericanist wrote

    “The Stars and Bars have just two meanings, whatever folks may THINK they communicate with ’em.

    The first is treason. The Confederacy was an attempt to overthrow the freely-elected national government by force, in order to preserve slavery against its own unpopularity.”

    As they say, the victors write the history books. The version of history theAmericanist mentions is not what many people in the South feel about the war even today. I even heard an explicitly different explanation in a MS grade school I attended.

    It is comforting to know that folks like theAmericanist exist that can give us the one true and absolute meaning of symbols like the stars and bars. You should consider writing a book with all doubt removed from the interpretation of a wide variety of symbols. I’m sure it would be handy as well as a best seller.

  34. Americanist:

    To equate the Confederacy with Naziism is irresponsible exaggeration at best and willful slander at worst.

    Yes, the Confederacy believed in the natural inferiority of blacks; however, this opinion was by no means confined to the Confederacy or to those who defended the institution of slavery.

    A proposal for the resettlement of blacks, was advocated, I believe, by Pres. Lincoln, among others.

    There were free blacks in the South, and there was no policy of systematic extermination or deprivation.

    Were blacks often denied their rights in the post Civil War South and at times the victims of violence? Yes, they were, and these are shameful episodes in Southern history. However, ethnic rivalry, official discrimination against minorities and slavery are nothing unusual in the history of the world.

    Unless you are willing to say that every historical instance of these policies and actions are the equivalent of the Nazi atrocites, then you should, perhaps, rethink, your comparison of the CSA to the Third Reich.

  35. dhanson says:

    I’ve taken a few moments to check out some of the links Mark Odell supplied about the confederate flag. While I learned a bit about some of the reasons people (particularly in the South) may choose to display this symbol, I’m afraid that in my mind those interpretations will remain secondary to that flag’s powerful association with more negative actions and attitudes.

    I appreciate the effort to educate me to other viewpoints, but, on this issue at least, I expect I’ll remain a PC drone.

  36. Americanist:

    My apologies. My comment was actually directed to “nobody important.”

  37. Walter Wallis says:

    How long did the Star Spangled Banner fly over slavery?
    Why are blacks moving back South from many of the Northern “Liberal” cities?
    Why are Liberals all shook up about a display of the Confederate Battle Flag and yet accept a display of a flag that represents over a billion enslaved and millions murdered? You all know the flag I am talking about.
    Perhaps we need a new term for Liberals – try pathetic assholes.

  38. theAmericanist says:

    Ah, still more evidence we need better history instruction in schools. Robin writes that to observe that the Confederacy (represented by the Stars and Bars, not to put too fine a point on it) was treason is “history written by the victors”.

    Um — what part of “the violent overthrow of the lawfully elected national government” was unclear? Or inaccurate?

    As for the relationship between the Confederacy and slavery, let’s just cite Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederacy, in 1861 — hardly ‘history written by the victors’, being as how the war hadn’t started yet, and in fact, when it DID start, the South was winning for the first few years:

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Alexander Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, Maarch 21, 1861.

    It surely is true, as Robin said, that there are folks in the South who do not believe this to have been true. But, psst, Robin? They’re WRONG.

    And now, whether you like it or not, you know better. Don’t you?

    Alas that nobody evidently bothered to have Tyler Shultz read that passage when it might have made an impression on him.

    (Re-read the passage: that’s what the stars and bars flag represented, quite literally. Don’t like it? Too bad. You don’t get to change history to make yourself feel better.)

    LOL — and as for Wallis’ notion that the Stars and Stripes represents slavery, I recall that this was the flag that flew over the Cornfield at Antietam, among other places, which speaks rather more eloquently about who is a “pathetic asshole”.


  39. Actually, the confederates did not seek the overthrow of the Federal Government, merely its removal from the southern states. The Federal Government would be free and unmolested in its continued governance of the northern states.

    Of course, the western expansion of both nations would have brought them into frequent conflict with each other, but that’s just war, not treason.

  40. dhanson says:

    Walter, I don’t think it’s necessary to be a liberal, much less a pathetic asshole to be disturbed by the display of the Confederate flag. The other questions posed in your post of 1:44 PM have nothing to do with the negative connotations many people see in the Confederate flag.

    At any rate, the real and imagined symbolism of the Confederate flag is probably not worth the time and emotion that it has received here today. Obviously some people feel very strongly about whatever way they see the symbol. I don’t think those views automatically are indicative of the overall liberal or conservative views of the individual. Or how pathetic they are or their status as an asshole.

  41. Mark wrote: Need I really explain that he’s referring not to “involuntarily getting pregnant”, but rather “involuntarily staying pregnant”?

    Mark, good to see you online again. It has been a while since we last conversed online.

    The point I was trying to convey, and obviously failed at, was exactly the clarification you made. Conservatives feel that life is sacred and that unborn babies should be protected. When a woman chooses to engage in behavior that leads to pregnancy that is not forcing her to involuntarily be pregnant. But the conservative position, which you don’t have to agree with to understand, is that once the woman is pregnant the child she is carrying should not be killed merely because it would inconvenient for her to have a child. I know some conservatives believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases including rape, incest, and if the mother’s life is in danger. Those are debatable points and I am not smart enough to know the answer.

    My personal belief is that humans have a soul.
    I don’t know when we acquire a soul.
    It is likely that if we do have souls we acquire them before we are actually born.
    I don’t know at what point before we are born a soul is acquired so I would rather err on the side of caution and say that abortions are generally illegal.

    I could see an Atheist not being bothered by abortion. After all, the being inside of a women is nothing more than some tissue and as such the mother has no responsibility to tissue growing in her own body. If she wants to have it removed how is that any different than liposuction, cosmetic surgery, or other elective operations that occur frequently?

  42. Walter Wallis says:

    One man, one vote, one time?
    We fought a revolution based on the idea that a government must be by the consent of the governed, then we forcibly put down, in the whiskey rebellion among others, attempts of others to emulate that withdrawal of consent. I am not content even today to equate succession with treason. The Federal Government owed a duty to the States at that time, a duty they failed in.
    In spite of the rape of Atlanta and other atrocities by the Union Army, the “Old Confederacy” has contributed far beyond its numbers to the defense of the United States, and the liberal north has given the South lessons in keeping the black man in his place.
    The flag that I suggested needed no mention was any of the flags of Communism considered tres chic on campi all across the land and, not just by chance, very often in organizations in the forefront of those objecting to the Confederate flag.

  43. theAmericanist says:

    It’s sort of bootless to argue with Wallis, but, just to correct the record:

    First, it was “secession”, not “succession.” (Arguing with an illiterate as well as an ignoramus, oy.)

    Second, the legal/Constitutional issue was whether the Federal union was perpetual, and that this was a commitment made by the states in ratifying the Constitution, and thus binding on them. Without going into a lot of detail, this was one reason why we HAVE a Constitution in the first place, since the original Articles of Confederation had failed. The legal/Constitutional dynamic on all this is necessarily political (it’s like proving a negative: did the Founders not mean what they didn’t say?), but the history is remarkably clear — apologists for secession cannot point to any consistent theory of the Union, e.g., states rights, which any proponent of the Confederacy ever followed when it was against the interests of slavery or the South. Suffice to note that time and again (the Nullification Crisis, f’r instance), the commitment which the states had made to the Union in perpetuity was acknowledged and reinforced. Hell, even Confederate general L.Q.C. Lamar acknowledged as much when he was confirmed to the Supreme Court long after the war.

    Third, Wallis DOES serve as the proverbial horrible warning (or at least a good example of it): he really believes this crap, which ten minutes consideration of the ACTUAL history shows is bogus. The Southern states had a right to secede? ALL government requires the consent of ALL the governed? LOL — the ‘rape of Atlanta’? (Wallis: Atlanta was burned; Nanking was raped. Confederate apologists generally refer to New Orleans when bitching about alleged atrocities by Union soldiers — and, lest I be misunderstood: it is a LIE. Got that?)

    Finally — what lies under all this is the vague and contemptible idea that, as Wallis put it, “the liberal north has given the South lessons in keeping the black man in his place..”

    The way he puts it speaks for itself.

  44. I must be an idiot. When I see the Confederate Flag I’m thinking The Dukes of Hazzard, General Lee, and Daisy Duke and her daisy dukes(mmmmm). And the little horn playing the Dixie tune.

  45. theAmericanist says:

    Totally OT, but — what DID they call shorts like that before the Dukes of Hazzard? I mean, when they called wardrobe that first day, they couldn’t have said: “okay, the sister needs a pair of…”

  46. Anonymous says:

    In 1944, Marilyn J. in my 6th grade class was denied admission to the William Land Park swimming pool in South Sacramento. Guess what color Marilyn was? The KKK was strongest in what state? What side was that state on in the Civil War? When did it become legal for Asians to own property in California? When did it become legal for Asians and Americals to marry in California? When did it become illegal to redline neighborhoods in Chicago?
    I wonder how many people have read the Articles of Confederation? To a libertarian they sound just fine.
    The perpetuality of the Federal Government sounds vaguely like the Divine Right of Kings. No generation or people has the right to bind another generation or people into any agreement that cannot be either ratified or not by that future generation. One man, one vote, one time is a tool of tyrants and a harvester of fools. The people are sovereign and government can only be an instrument of that sovereignty or it becomes a tool of oppression. I always worried about Daisy Duke getting cold. And my occasional misspelling is hardly a demonstration of illiteracy, nor is my mention of things outside the PC envelop ignorant. How quickly they attack the man when they lack the wit to attack the idea. How well the brainwashing took. Pavlov would have been proud. My apology to assholes, since they perform a necessary function, unlike liberals.

  47. Mad Scientist says:

    This Yankee would refer theAmericanist to the Declaration of Independance. Something in there say something about government and the rights of the governed and when the government did not suit the governed, the governed had the right endowed by the creator to quit and start afresh.

    Last I knew, that was the rationale good old Tom used for seceeding from England. That war worked out in favor of “the oppressed”. Perhaps it is too bad the South did not succeed in its attempted secession.

    Then they could gleefully deal with illegal immigration as they saw fit.

  48. Sic Semper Tyrannis says:

    The Confederate battle flag stands for freedom against tyranny. Don’t try to tell me what my flag and the flag of my ancestors stands for. Don’t try to tell me what my ancestors were fighting for. The “damnyankees”, yes it is one word, try to tell us that our forefathers were traitors. Well, if fighting for independence is treason, call me a traitor. I’m sure notable southrons like Jefferson, Washington, and Adams would be quick to disagree with you.

    It was not a civil war. We only wanted to be left alone and not overthrow the government.

    The war was not about slavery. “If I thought this war was about slavery, I would throw down my sword and offer it to the other side,” US Grant. When asked why he didn’t release his slaves during the war, US Grant said,”Good help is hard to find.” Lincoln himself said he did not have authority to change or alter the institution of slavery. It was his objective to keep the union united.

    The proposed 13th amendment to the constition, which would have been ratified if accepted by the seceding states, would not allow the institution of slavery to ever be abolished. Even New York tried to secede during the war. Maybe y’all have heard of the New York draft riots.

    I ask you Confederate haters this. Would you rather we stayed in the union and kept our slaves?

    The victors always write the history of the conflict. No wonder it is tilted to the Yankee viewpoint.

    In the end, true Southrons, not those wussie turncoats who would be spat upon by their great grandfathers, will always raise the battle flag and campaign for freedom. We will never truly be defeated because the true spirit of liberty cannot be extinguished. To all the Yankees, I say let us go our own way and you will not have to worry about us any more. When it is once again time, we will leave again. Do you think a bunch of false peace loving liberals have the fortitude to try and subdue us again. Oh yeah, thanks for putting all those military bases in the South.

    Secession will come once again. We will be free. God forgive those that try to subjugate us again.

    Deo Vindice
    God save the South and her people. And believe me I include all our black Southron brethren when I make that statement.

    Yours Truly
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  49. Mad Scientist says:

    And I am waiting for a retraction of the accusation made by theAmercianist. To wit: “LOL — and as for Wallis’ notion that the Stars and Stripes represents slavery, I recall that this was the flag that flew over the Cornfield at Antietam, among other places, which speaks rather more eloquently about who is a “pathetic asshole”.

    Specifically when Walter answered his little quiz thusly: “The flag that I suggested needed no mention was any of the flags of Communism considered tres chic on campi all across the land and, not just by chance, very often in organizations in the forefront of those objecting to the Confederate flag.

    Whoi is LOLing now?

  50. Walter E. Wallis says:

    I love almost all you people.
    And JJ, of course.
    I kinda even like most of the rest of you.
    If I didn’t think there was a chance, I would sandbag my bunker and lay in supplies for the armagedon. I still have hope.
    I also have an engineer’s understanding of just how much it takes to make civilization go.
    Don’t shut the engine down with stupidity. If you do, most of us will die.

  51. Walter E. Wallis says:

    And, lest we forget, organizations that excrete a masonery unit at any display of the Confederate flag, but segue around any mention of the slave trade that goes on today, unopposed, in their homeland. Sometimes roots are imbedded in dirt.

  52. (1) re: abortion, I agree with Ross.

    (2) re: the Confederate flag, as a native Mississippian, I’m ready to see the flag go. Here’s why: That flag was the flag of a country in which black people had no human rights. We’re not just talking Jim Crow here. If the Confederacy had survived that probably would have changed eventually (see South Africa) but it didn’t. We white folks tend to get impatient when black people go on and on about 400 years of oppression and the legacy of slavery and so forth; we want to tell them to let go of the past and get with the program. Well, how can they when they see that flag of the CSA in their face all the time – and around here, it is. Maybe it’s time for us to let go of the past and get with the program too. As for our Southern heritage, last I heard courtesy was a big part of that. How courteous is it to knowingly offend the heck out of your fellow citizens?

  53. theAmericanist says:

    (sigh) No less than Lincoln himself pointed out that the phrase from the Declaration about the “revolutionary right of the people to alter or abolish” their chosen form of government proved the point that secession was un-Constitutional and unlawful, being as how “revolutionary’ means outside the law and required overturning the Constitution.


    Since I quoted the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY on slavery and white supremacy forming “the cornerstone” of secession (before Sumter, btw), I dunno what folks think they’re refuting, e.g., “Don’t try to tell me what my ancestors were fighting for..”

    Um, no: THEY already did that. It helps to know, ya see. White supremacy and slavery was the “cornerstone” — get it? Didn’t you know? It was in ALL the papers at the time.

    LOL — it’s just pitiful. Grant bitching about needing good help? Oy. Grant owned no slaves himself. His wife did. He sold ’em long before the war — he was broke, remember? While he was out of the army, Grant was reduced to borrowing money from regular army officers (like his pal Longstreet), and selling firewood on street corners. He was NOT a slave owner. Ya wanna know what a slave owner looked like, read up on Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate cavalryman and founder of the KKK.

    Man, the sheer ignorance displayed here is just priceless. Lincoln wrote probably the most plain expression of policy EVER by a President, in his letter to Horace Greeley, that the war was to preserve the Union: if by freeing all the slaves, that’s how he’d do it; if by some, but not others, he’d do that; if by freeing none of the slaves, he’d also do that: but he would preserve the Union.

    Which he did. Thank God.

    Had the South won the Civil War, Stephens’ “cornerstone” would have been restored as the foundation of the nation — the whole nation, north and south. I can’t believe anybody is dumb enough to wish for that — but then, I couldn’t believe Trent Lott was stupid enough to wish Thurmond had been elected in 1948, either.

    The sad thing is that JJ started this thread because some knucklehead kid (and the bag of hammers that evidently ran his schol) didn’t know enough to realize what the Stars and Bars actually mean. And a whole series of posters happily jumped up to defend this fool and his ignorance, because 1) they don’t understand the Civil War, either, 2) they have no clue how it was fought, nor why, 3) they never heard of massive resistance, and (giving the game away) 4) they defend ignorance by changing the subject to how communism sucks, liberals are assholes, and oh yeah, the North could have given the South lessons in racism.

    Oh? No kidding — and all that excuses this idiot how?

    Why not just note the kid is ignorant and that shouldn’t be encouraged by um, a school?

  54. Walter E. Wallis says:

    Hey theAmericanist – Did you sleep through today’s class?
    If slavery is bad, it was and is bad, and not just if it is practiced by White Christian Southern Gentlemen.
    To fulminate about a symbol while embracing the practice is not just perverse, it is sinful. To bloviate about what the Vice President of the Confederacy said about blacks and yet to slide over what the North and their President said is dishonest. To condemn the South and excuse the North is to suggest that slavery is all right as long as you come up with a politically correct name for it.
    To embrace the party of Jim Crow and KKK while calling the party that dumped segregation racist is JUST PLAIN DISHONEST.
    [And kinda stupid]
    And if you don’t know what the Hammer and Sickle and derivateves thereoff stand for, you need more than an aspirin.

  55. after reading theAmericanist’s post it reminds me that when some folks run their mouths it makes me want to fly the damn flag after all.

  56. Mad Scientist says:

    Just as George III thought of the Revolutionists were, well revolutionary. And traitorist.

    Justice is justice. Tyranny is tyranny. It all depends upon whom is dispensing justice and who considers that justice tyranny.

    I am amazed at how you label everyone who holds a different opinion than you as ignorant. That is pure arrogance. When you think that you are better than everyone else, you run the risk of appearing arrogant.

  57. Um, where do I begin? This whole thread concerning the Confederate Flag and the kid’s right to have it in HIS picture that expresses HIS personality. Gosh, the venom that has been spewed because someone insists that this kid is stupid.

    It amazes me to this day that if we disagree with someone that we hurl insults and degrade them. Whatever happened with disagreeing agreeably?

    Being someone from Georgia, I’ve heard more than my fair share of flag debates and most of the arguments put forward are almost always personal. The same thing can be said for the American flag because it means many different things to people. Imagine that.

    As for the various issues relating to slavery, it’s done and over with. Move on. Your arguments are old. You have nothing new or profound. It was wrong. It no longer exists. There are other more pressing issues.

  58. Maybe the Americanist should share his incredible insights regarding the the cause of the Civil War and the viability of the idea of secession with noted historian Shelby Foote. By his standards, Foote is a regular moron. On page 152 of the excellent book, Confederates in the Attic, one finds these sentences:

    “To Foote, the Confederacy’s avowed commitment of states’ rights wasn’t simply a fig leaf for a defense of slavery. ‘It’s ridiculous now to talk about the right to secede; it was not ridiculous in 1861,’ he (Foote) said. ‘Not one of those thirteen colonies would have joined the Union if they hadn’t believed they could get out of it.'”

    The matter may be settled TODAY in 2004, but it definitely wasn’t in 1860. Nor was it settled earlier in that century, when the New England states threatened to secede over earlier wars fought by the United States. That, you see, is why we had a Civil War in the first place. Incidentally, a fair number of people in the NORTH agreed with the southern argument. They didn’t want to be in the same union with slave-holding states, and they didn’t think the matter was worth the bloodshed of a civil war.

    As for the young man who started this whole thread – if he finds this blog, I’m sure he is getting a chuckle out of some of the reactions. (Unlike some people here, I can remember what it was like to be a teenager.) I wonder if the Americanist twists his undies in a knot when he sees kids wearing Che t-shirts, or wearing anything that promotes or glorifes, say, communism? The last time I checked, communism had spread a lot more misery – and killed a lot more people – than the Confederacy ever did.

    I seem to recall receiving lots of lectures about freedom of speech when those on the left of the political spectrum did or wore something offensive. I was always told to ignore it, as their rights were more important than my sensibilities. The people who did the lecturing, incidentally, seem to be the same people who throw a fit over the Confederate flag. Maybe some people need to follow their own advice…and, at the same time, cut down on the annoying display of (illusory) moral superiority.

  59. Walter E. Wallis says:

    If yesterday’s evils drive you nuts and today’s evils don’t faze you, you have a real problem.
    If a symbol blows you but reality escapes you, you are a coward. It is cheap to oppose Hitler and Stalin today. Back when I did it carried a price. It is cheap to oppose segregation today. Back when I put my body on the line it carried real consequences. Cheap shots and moral equivalencies don’t get it with me. I don’t hold the South in contempt because I know the North. Sometimes Jim Crow was a damnsight more honest than the myriad tricks they pulled up North and elsewhere to “maintain property values” or some such. People are imperfect but they are all we have to work with. Most of the people I have known to be Rah Rah Hey Hey equality for all today have been comfortable in their soft bigotry of lower expectations. But it is safe to rally against the Confederate flag.

  60. theAmericanist says:

    There is a psychological phenom called “displacement”. It is a kind of denial, and generally ineffective. For instance, if a cop pulls you over and explains that you just ran a red light, and you respond: “Yeah, well — THOSE guys are speeding!”, the odds are pretty good that 1) she will not be impressed by your ‘defense’, and 2) she may decide to ratchet up her response from a warning to a fine and points, because you’re a bonehead.

    A kid poses in a school picture — to express his personality — with a symbol that has just two meanings: treason and white supremacy. (You could look it up: I recommend it.) So Wallis hallucinates that folks who know about this must therefore be Communist sympathizers, or cowards, or something. “Yeah, officer, so what that the light was red? That guy there is doing 40 in a 25 zone! Why don’t you go chase him, and leave me alone?”

    (patiently) I think it is reasonably clear that the question of secession was decided at Appomattox. For the purposes of argument, though — grant (as subtler scholars than we see here argue) that it was not a wholly unreasonable view of states rights in 1861, if wholly untried and thoroughly counter-indicated by the Nullifaction Crisis, the Fugitive Slave Act, etc. (Remember them? Facts, folks.)

    Even granting that, where does it get you? The sole purpose for secession was to preserve slavery, and the rights of slave holders over their human property (including rape, the sale of children, torture and murder) against the unpopularity of those evil practices by the majority of Americans. It is a sign of just how ignorant folks posting here are about the source of their own opinions that they don’t seem to know that this is exactly what the secessionists said at the time.

    For example: under the 3/5s clause of the Constitution, as Lucius Quintus Cinncinnatus Lamar (a Congressman and Senator, then a Confederate general, and finally a Supreme Court justice and architect of Jim Crow) observed shortly before the war, the South had 20 Representatives in the House BECAUSE of slavery that they would not have, without it. And they STILL couldn’t reliably protect slavery, they felt, because Lincoln was elected.

    Think about that. Pro-slavery folks in Congress had succeeded in enacting the Fugitive Slave Act, which imposed Federal power to enforce slavery on states which outlawed it. Pro-slavery justices on the Supremes had managed to establish as Constitutional law that “no black man has any rights that a white man need respect”.

    Yet — they lost one national election, so Lincoln took office: and they tried to quit the Union, to preserve slavery as ‘the cornerstone’ of their society, getting 600,000 Americans killed in the process.

    LOL — and folks here have the sheer, ignorant nerve to pretend that there was a shred of decency to the Confederacy’s claims?

  61. Tim Gannon says:

    Why is flying the Confederate Flag any different than the burning of the American flag?

    We have had this long discussion about how bad flying the Confederate Flag. In this context, re-read the above posts and insert “burning the American flag” and see what happens.

    At the end of the day those against these actions are trying to limit speech that they don’t like, no matter how bad the reason. The last I heard, Americans have the right to propose and advocate positions that other people don’t like.

  62. nobody important says:

    Thank you Amercanist for your historical insights.

    First off, Walter, I’m not a liberal. You seem unable to comprehend that it doesn’t take a liberal to see the evil of the Confederacy. Here’s a clue: I’m talking about the Confederacy, the losing side of the Civil War. Not about Southerners. If you identify so closely with the Confederacy that you get hurt over the fact that great-grandpa was a Nazi, that’s your problem. Get over it.

    And Susan, here’s your point by point comparison:

    Slave labor? check.
    Concentration camps (plantations)? check.
    White supremicist ideology? check.
    State sacntioned violence? check.
    Racial/ethnic group considered sub-human? check.
    Victims in the millions? check.
    Disastrous war with US? check.
    Defeated by US? check.

    Sounds like Nazis to me, Skokie Nazis pehaps, but Nazis nonetheless. As I said feel free to fly that disgraceful rag, but don’t get all indignant and hurt when others point out the evil of the Confederacy and the ignorance of its modern defenders.

    Mad Scientist, perhaps it would have been better if Nat Turner’s insurrection was successful?

    Sic Semper Tyrannis, the cry of a murderer, an assasin, a coward, how fitting. Yes, if your forefathers fought in the Confederate Army, they were traitors. They raised their arms in rebellion and suffered ignominious defeat. And yes the victors do get to write the history. We won, you lost, take defeat like men and admit that what your ancestors were fighting for was evil.

  63. Mad Scientist says:

    First off, my forebears did not land in this country until 1905. So don’t even try to pin any association with the Confederacy to me.

    Yes, it probably would have been better if the South had won. It would have evolved into a North American version of South Africa; ultimately their aparthied would have ended naturally. All the while, the agrarian economy of the deep south would have made them effectively just another third world country. In addition, any illegal immigrants would probably been enslaved; that very act would have stemmed the tide of illegals.

    Remember (lest you forget) that the DOI would not have been signed if Tom, Ben, John and the boys did not accede to the demands of the South and intentionally allow the slavery issue to be decided at a later date. In a way the Civil War forced the issue; if the South did not have a reason to believe the issue would have been decided in their favor, they would never have signed on. The believed (wrongly) that they could just “up and leave” once emancipation from England was a done deal.

    Finally, I would submit that the South never had the intention of a “final solution” to the “negro problem” by practicing genocide until they got it right. You seem to have left that conveniently out of your “point by point” comparison. There are other errors, but this is the most eggregious.

  64. Richard Aubrey says:

    Y’all are missing the point.
    The question is not what the flag means to you.
    That wasn’t the question the kid was addressing when he chose it.
    The question is what it means to him. That appears to be pretty benign.
    You can flaunt your wonderfulness and sensitivity for all to see, and your easily-inflamed offendedness gland, but that’s wasting pixels.
    The question is what the flag meant to the kid.
    Nothing special.
    It is clear, however, that those who get most upset about the CSA flag are usually busy with something else when the subject of the Gulag comes up, or the Killing Fields, or any of a large number of other atrocities.
    Just thought I’d mention that it’s REALLY OBVIOUS.
    In case you thought it wasn’t.

  65. “Yes, it probably would have been better if the South had won. It would have evolved into a North American version of South Africa; ultimately their aparthied would have ended naturally. All the while, the agrarian economy of the deep south would have made them effectively just another third world country. ”

    As someone who lives in the area, I definitely wouldn’t consider it an improvement if my beloved home evolved into a North American version of South Africa or if it became “effectively just another third world country”.

    “In addition, any illegal immigrants would probably been enslaved; that very act would have stemmed the tide of illegals.”

    Oh yeah, the persistence of slavery is much better than having to look at funny looking people speaking a foreign language.

    An independent Confederacy would lead to a huge horde of illegal immigrants looking for a decent life – in Pennsylvania.

  66. But I guess that doesn’t matter because they’d all be speaking English.

  67. The meaning of symbols both 1:)Evolve over time & 2:)Depend upon who is using the symbol. For instance, gays held in concentration camps by the Nazis were labeled with pink triangles. But now, it symbolizes gay pride. Not all symbols experience such change in definition, but many in the south are attempting to push the definition away from the racist symbol it was (is).

  68. Walter E. Wallis says:

    3/5ths was an anti slavery action and a rebuke to slave owning states. Figure it out.
    Most of those check points apply equally to the Union. Ask any Amerind. As near as I can figure, I had ancestors on both sides.
    Since the South could have kept slavery had it accepted Federal supremacy by Lincoln’s own words, to deny the self-determination aspect is a convenient fiction.
    What this discussion started about was an official action not consistent with free speach. It is an acceptable method of balancing an equation to cross cancel. The value assigned to the remaining factors may be up to argument, but to assign weight to those factors based solely on cross cancelled values is disengenuous. I seem to recall something about motes and beams. Spare me your moral outrage. I held no slaves, you freed none. I rebuke today’s slavery enablers, you whip a long dead horse.

  69. Mad Scientist says:

    Ken, lighten up. I am sorry that “sarcasm” was not in your vocabulary.

  70. WOW! Lighten up folks! This is a conversation, not a battle…

  71. Richard Brandshaft says:

    To spare those not interested in the pregnancy thread, I’ll put a couple of short comments first.

    “Treason.” A poor argument, considering this nation was founded on treason against the crown.

    The flag:
    I did think of a counter to my own argument. Ten years after the fall of the Soviet Union, “KGB” and “CCCP” T-shirts were for sale in the tourist areas of Prague. They were obviously for tourists, not natives. (Due to poor impulse control, I have a T-shirt that reads “KGB still watching you” in English.) Still, I thought it astounding that the Czechs had developed a sense of humor about the Soviets so soon. But it could also be viewed as trivializing evil.

    Involuntary pregnancies:

    All such characterizations have individual exceptions. Yes, there are conservatives who don’t believe in involuntary pregnancies. There also are liberals who believe in self-defense, even with (gasp) guns. But I have no hesitation in describing liberals as gunphobic, even though I’ve met exceptions.

    I plead guilty to having used an unnecessary irrelevant emotionally charged metaphor (or is that simile?). But I stand by “conservatives are in favor of involuntary pregnancies.”

    I don’t know your age. I was born in 1941. I remember when whether anyone (even married couples) ought to be allowed to buy contraceptives was an issue in what we now call the culture wars. The liberal activist judges, then developing the right to privacy as a constitutional doctrine, overruled the conservative sex police.

    I concede one point: If we say conservatives are against other people having recreational sex, and are against contraception as a means to that end, you get the same external behavior.

    Conservatives are consistently against sex education in schools. Yes, it’s true that if you don’t have sex, you won’t have accidental pregnancies. The conservative “abstinence only education” arguments SOUND good; they just don’t work all that well.

    (I might add that guns are to liberals what sex is to conservatives. Liberals rightly point out the danger of children having accidents with guns. But when it comes to gun safety education in schools, they have about the same attitude as conservatives toward sex ed.)

    As for the soul thing: I am an atheist. (Technically an agnostic. But Bertrand Russell gave the answer to the atheist-agnostic distinction when he said he was an agnostic with respect to both the Christian God and the Gods of ancient Greece.) No point in arguing that. I will say the abortion question falls into the established conservative pattern of finding reasons to be in favor of involuntary pregnancies.

  72. nobody important says:

    I’m not trying to pin anything on anyone. I see alot of folks pinning themselves. Whether or not your forbears participated in the enslavement of humans and the rebellion against an elected, constitutional government, says nothing about you today as an American. Like Walter says, “I held no slaves, you freed none” (not that anyone claimed that). If you put your hands over your eyes and refuse to see that the enslavement of humans was evil and that those who fought to perpetuate that evil – that says volumes.

    I’m also not saying that you (the non-personal you, not directed at anyone) do not have the liberty to wave the flag of your choice; you do. I also have the liberty to voice my opinion. If it hurts your feelings, well that’s your problem.

    I am not claiming that the parallels with Nazism are 100% exact, but they are very, very close. While the slave owners didn’t intend genocide (why would they destroy their “property”?) the effect was similar. It is estimated (probably too high) that 20 million Africans died during the Middle Passage. Even if it were “only” a million doesn’t that qualify as an enormous evil?

    And I give no “pass” to Northern slave owners, or those who profited from the slave trade (some of whom may have been my forebears). They too were partners in one of the great crimes of history.

  73. theAmericanist says:

    ‘Course it ain’t a battle; one side ain’t armed.

    This isn’t a free speech case, and there are other differences with flag burning.

    The kid is (or was, anyway) in a SCHOOL. So the most important thing isn’t his ‘free speech right’ to be a knucklehead in public, but the possibility, however slight, that schooling might educate him out of it. (A chance lost for several posters here, alas.) In that sense, I suppose there is a small parallel with a hypothetical flag burning that some kid might want to do on school grounds someplace. But why on earth would you want to make up THAT parallel? It hasn’t happened, ya know — not in decades, if ever. Strive to stay within shouting distance of reality, sounds like good advice.

    Flag burning is actually extremely rare as a political protest in the U.S. — no more than a half dozen publicized incidents (if an incident isn’t publicized, it’s already failed) in the past 20 years, if that many. As a protest, it really doesn’t work well; it alienates more than persuades (hey, I KNOW about this) — I like Saul Alinksy’s idea, that it’s better to stain a flag with something you don’t like, e.g., the name of a President or a policy, and then publicly wash it out.

    But as political speech, of course flag burning is protected. What else is it? There was a great exhibit in museums not so long ago, where a huge American flag was put on the floor, and a display case set in the middle of it, wth a sign: Read this. The only way to see what was in the display, was to walk on the flag. It was incredible the number of folks who were offended — and even more impressive were the folks (like me) who weren’t offended, but couldn’t bring themselves to DO it.

    And what ws in the display? There was a little sign that read “don’t tell anybody”, and a copy of the bill of rights. You had to stand on the symbol, to read the meaning.

    ‘Course, symbols change meaning over time. I’ve written about this — how peculiarly American it is that Connecticut calls itself “the Nutmeg State’, or Oklahomans call themselves “Sooners”, being as how both denote cheating. I think it’s fascinating that the ugly Thomas Nast woodcut of the simian Irishman in the draft riots wound up the cute leprechaun symbol of Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish — or, for that matter, the street cred of NWA.

    So that’s the point — w’re not talking about A symbol, we’re talking about this one. The BEST anybody can say about what the Stars and Bars symbolize is a bogus and ignorant notion that it really means “rebellion” generically, or the “southron heritage”.

    LOL — and when somebody points out what those actually WERE, namely treason, slavery, and white supremacy, folks get huffy and defensive. How does that help this kid?

    A teaching moment lost, folks.

    Besides — the stars and bars was NOT a popular symbol of the Lost Cause between, say, Appomattox and the Brown decision. In fact, in those days the symbol was the burning cross — you’re the folks who are insisting that they’;re the same: ’nuff said.

    If the Stars and Bars was genuinely a symbol of that good “heritage” (what the hell is that supposed to mean, if NOT treason and slavery, anyway? use facts), then it would surely have symbolized such BEFORE desegregation.

    Face it, folks: the Confederate flag (so to speak) was revived as a symbol of massive resistance to long-overdue justice, and it’s clowns like Wallis who’ve helped pervert knuckleheads like this kid into thinking it’s some generic, honorable “heritage” stripped of its actual meaning.

    Is THAT what we want our schools teaching kids is “free expression”? Sure, they have the Constitutional right to be publicly ignorant and stupid — but, ya know what? That’s NOT what schools are FOR.

  74. Maybe the young man picked the “rebel” flag to denote his rebellion (common teenage variety) or maybe….. he just did it to get a bunch of “old farts” (on both sides) bent out of shape: Maybe he wasn’t quite as stupid as you would all have him appear…… Just a thought!

  75. “clowns like Wallis”

    He does not deserve that. Nothing Walter has posted here is the least bit clownlike.

    “Is THAT what we want our schools teaching kids is ‘free expression’?”

    Americanist, why don’t you make a list of all the appropriate and acceptable expressions that ought to be allowed. Then there will be no more problems.

    If you want to know why enlightened Southerners like me, who don’t want that &%#% flag flown, still resist having it banned, go back and read your own posts.

  76. theAmericanist says:

    (smile) Tell us, Laura: why DO you want to fly a flag that represents the “corner- stone… the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition…..this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth…” ????

    Do explain. Sounds like an inferiority complex to me.

    It ain’t complex, ya know. The Confederacy meant… what the Confederates said it did, what they intended it to do. That’s why I quoted Alexander Stephens, the CSA’s Vice President. It was founded on slavery and white supremacy. It was NOT founded on “states’ rights”, because its leadership — Stephens, Jefferson Davis, et al — had spent the previous six years trying to get the Federal government to impose slave laws on free states. It was precisely a violent effort to overthrow a lawfully elected government: Lincoln won. He was therefore the Commander in Chief. Several hundred officers promptly violated their oaths to leave the U.S. Army by refusing his lawful orders. Fort Sumter itself was fired on by Confederates simply because Lincoln insisted on resupplying it. Pretending the Stars and Bars represents something other than treason and slavery is downright hallucinatory — or ignorant.

    Which are you?

    Likewise, massive resistance meant exactly what it was: an attempt by segregationists and white supremacists to retain what they called “the Southern way of life”, namely Jim Crow. The Stars and Bars was revived after Brown vs. Board of Education to symbolize that effort.

    LOL — if you don’t know that, you can’t very well blame your ignorance on folks who know better. This, too, is the sorta thing folks seek education to remedy.

    It’s perfectly legit to have an inferiority complex, to react to somebody observing that something you identify with, e.g., the Confederacy or Jim Crow, was evil, by denial and a kind of perverse pride.

    But educating people out of that is what schools are for.


    LOL — and as for Wallis, I’ll just cite two clownish things the guy has said in THIS thread:

    1) “3/5ths was an anti slavery action and a rebuke to slave owning states. Figure it out.”

    Um, to “figure it out”, ya have to do the math. (And this guy is an engineer?) The three-fifths clause provided that slaves would be counted for the purpose of REPRESENTING THEIR OWNERS in Congress, with every five slaves counting as three “people” for the purpose of allocating U.S. Representatives. It was quite explicitly intended to entice slave states into a PERMANENT Union by offering them more representation than their numbers warranted. Read the Constitutional debates, it’s all there.

    There were three options debated before Roger Sherman proposed the 3/5s compromise. The first was the righteous one — either slaves would be free’d and get to vote and thus could be counted for representing themselves, or else slavery would continue, slaves could not vote, and thus, wouldn’t be counted for representation.

    The second was the slaveholder position — that slaves would be counted just the same as others for the purposes of representation, yet of course not allowed to vote. I won’t insult him by assuming that’s why Wallis thinks the 3/5s clause is an insult to slavery, because the slave owners were over-represented by only 60% instead of 100% — but it’s his implication, and he oughta be embarrassed or worse.

    “Figure it out”? This clown has obviously never given 30 seconds thought to it. In 1790, South Carolina had 140,000 free persons, and 107,000 slaves. If ONLY the free people were counted, they would have had roughly 5 seats in Congress, plus two Senators. But with the slaves counted under the 3/5s clause, they got three more seats in Congress — OVER-representing the slave owners by three votes. This was done for all the slaveholding states, over-representing them in Congress by about 16% by 1860. (I noted LQC Lamar himself said so, then a Congressman, later a Confederate general who ended his career as a Supreme Court Justice and architect of Jim Crow.)

    Treating slaveowners votes as being worth three-fifths MORE than ordinary people meant that the slave interest managed to force the Wilmot Proviso, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Law into force, none of which would have passed if slaves had not been counted for the purposes of being represented by their owners.

    Instead of being outvoted by New England, then later the Midwest, the slave states used their slaves to maintain a political clout that their VOTES could never have provided ’em on the ‘one person, one vote’ principle — and they still lost, thank God.

    Ahem — the way to “figure it out”, is to do the math. And you wonder why I observe this guy is a clown?

    2) “yesterday’s evils drive you nuts and today’s evils don’t faze you…” Just how does this follow?

    The kid who posed with the Confederate flag evidently never learned what it stood for — not in 1861 when it stood for treason and slavery, nor when it was revived after 1954 as a symbol for massive resistance. (Which is when it was incorporated into the flags of Georgia and South Carolina.) I dunno about the rest of you, but I think failing to educate kids is a current evil.

    So just how does recognizing ignorance and calling it out suggest that “today’s evils don’t faze” anybody?

    I suppose it’s harsh, but I call stupid ideas “stupid”, and ignorant expressions “ignorant” around here. Thus, Wallis — the guy who opines that “liberals are pathetic assholes” — is a “clown”.

    LOL — read his stuff, think about it, and it’s clear: the guy might as well wear a red nose and yard long floppy shoes.

  77. theAmericanist says:

    “Why do you want that flag flown…” was unfair and inaccurate. So I should make it clear: I know Laura doesn’t want to fly the Stars and Bars.

    What’s curious to me, is why she thinks I want it banned.

    I want people educated, to learn facts and the skills of thinking so they don’t WANT to fly it in the first place.

  78. Mad Scientist says:

    It is truly a shame we are all not as enlightened as you.

  79. theAmericanist says:

    (grin) Chicken.


  80. Cousin Dave says:

    Americanist, you can stop with the LOLs now. We all know you are sneering at us. You should congratulate yourself because you have presented an example of something that I haven’t run across in a long time: a smug, self-centered, know-it-all Northerner. Growing up where I did, I really get tired of people who continue to try to fight the Civil War today. It ended 140 years ago, folks. However, usually that problem is on the Southern side. I think you are the first Northerner I’ve ever encountered who wants to keep fighting it. Your side won already, OK?

    1. Inherent in the very definition of “symbolism” is that symbols are emotional and can produce different reactions in different people. Just because someone else does not get the same emotional reaction that you do does not make them an idiot.

    2. Don’t you try to lay your liberal plantation-owner guilt on me. My ancestors came to this country around 1890. Those hillbillies I was telling you about? That was my great-grandfather. My grandfather was a linthead (go look it up). My father’s generation were the first ones to go to college.

    3. Since you claim to have the absolute truth about everything, it isn’t to your credit that you keep referring to the battle flag as the Stars and Bars. They aren’t close to being the same thing. We already provided you with the links. Go look it up.

  81. Few Points:
    The Stars and Bars is one flag; the Confederate Battle Flag is another. The Confederate Naval Jack is yet another. The Naval Jack and the Battle Flag differ only in dimensions. The high school student was photographed with the Confederate Naval Jack, which was flown over the SC State House from 1962 to 2000. South Carolina never incorporated the flag into its state flag. The SC state flag has not changed since 1861 (when they added a palmetto tree).

    The Battle Flag stood for everything the Confederacy stood for, including slavery. The Confederate Naval Jack was revived as a sign of resistance against desegregation. It also symbolizes resistance to federal control in general.

    So, I guess my question is: What would be the most appropriate, rebellious symbol for someone who believed in less centralized government?

  82. Walter E. Wallis says:

    Representation based on the number of voters? Lots of women back then would have taken issue with that.
    You say that the Confederate flag was a symbol of Southern resistance to desegregation. I say that it is a mirror held up to Northern hypocracy.
    It has long been said that in the South, blacks were loved as individuals but hated as a race, while in the North blacks were hated as individuals but loved as a race.
    I am not real traveled – are there any Southern equivalents to the projects in Chicago?

  83. Mad Scientist says:

    It is also truly a shame that you cannot see sarcasm when it is directed at you.

  84. Walter: I said the flag was resistance to desegregation. No where did I say southern. Segregation occurred in most places, not just the south. This flag was used by many in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. who believed that whites were superior. Of course these individuals also used the US flag too.

  85. theAmericanist says:

    LOL — not laughing at ALL of you, just the ones who are funny (generally unintentionally).

    The argument on female suffrage is a bit different, simply because for the most part (western states being distinct, and then only for a time) the ratio of men to women is roughly equal. So while you could argue that counting women for representation even though they couldn’t vote over-represented men, in the end as a ratio it doesn’t actually change anything since when you take ’em out, you still wind up with roughly the same proportional populations to be represented, just with half as many in SC, or NY, or OH, etc. This is not true if you remove slaves under the 3/5s ratio from Congressional representation before the Civil War — as I noted above, something like 20 Representatives in the South got their seats ONLY because slaves who could not vote and were not citizens and had no rights were counted to create a kind of extra representation for their masters.

    It is no accident, of course, that the first state to allow women to vote (Wyoming) was trying to persuade women to move there (I’ve been to Wyoming; makes sense to me); while the first to allow married women to own property independently was Utah — which sorta explains itself, now doesn’t it?

    Brown (the Voting Rights Act) killed Jim Crow, which was peculiar to the South, but it outlawed segregation in the whole nation. Ya know, the principle that the Confederacy sought to abolish? Sorta hard to see how a symbol of the Confederacy (pace the vexigillists here) and of massive resistance also represents defiance of “northern hypocricy”, being as how we’re talking about laws that applied to the WHOLE country — the one the Confederacy sought to destroy.


    BTW, there IS a fascinating connection between female suffrage, equal opportunity and Jim Crow. Before the Civil War, abolitionists (like Frederick Douglass), and suffragists like Susan B. Anthony made common cause — not only would slavery be abolished, but both blacks AND women would become fully citizens, including the vote. In the big fight immediately after the Civil War that led to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, respectively abolishing slavery, establishing a national citiznship for “all persons born or naturalized”, and providing voting rights to MEN ONLY, the suffragists properly felt stiffed by the last. Douglass rather apologetically explained to Susan B. that he took what he could get — that as far as he was concerned, votes for black men was a BIG step forward, and he felt like he would have lost it if he had held out to get votes for women, too. (History does not record what Susan B. told him, but methinks it was curt — and prophetic.)

    So having been stiffed on the 15th, the suffragists tried to argue that as “persons”, women were guaranteed full citizenship under the 14th amendment. That would have meant that the U.S. Constitution therefore protected their right to vote in ANY state. The Supremes — which by then included the aforementioned Lucius Quintus Cinncinnatus Lamar (what a name! he should have been a baseball player) wasn’t about to recognize a women’s right to vote THAT way, so they stated… that voting rights were wholly up to the states.

    When the old Confederacy realized that, the Invisible Empire (led by such Confederates as Nathan Bedford Forrest) and the state legislatures made short work of African-American voting.

    So selling out votes for women led directly to Jim Crow.

    (Why don’t they teach this to kids like Tyler Shultz? What DO they teach kids like that, anyway? Evidently what Mad and Wallis learned, which is sorta alarming… )

  86. Mad Scientist says:

    I guess you conveniently forgot that only land owners were allowed to vote. Something we might try to bring back.

  87. theAmericanist says:

    Only in some states — and I dunno why failing to unpack that mess would have been “convenient”.

    But, just cuz it is nearly relevant for once, I can’t resist throwing in my favorite multicultural factoid about political distinctions between men and women: among the Haudonsee, the Iroquois, only men could speak around the council fire…

    But only women decided which men.

    How about we bring THAT back — only men can hold office, but only women can vote?

  88. Mad Scientist says:

    Damn, it must be good to be you. What, with that winning personality, I’ll bet you got scads of people just waiting with baited breath on every word.

  89. I think anyone who has continued reading these posts will agree that this has gone on far enough. Not only have we gotten off the true subject (the absolute stupidity of a school allowing its seniors to “express their personalities”…in pictures no less!!) but we’ve also managed to take an intelligent forum and turn it into a pissing contest. Why don’t y’all (note the Southern twang) just call it a draw and move on to more important pursuits. Although, you – and by you I mean theAmericanist – have provided me with some mindless (perhaps, mindnumbing is more appropriate) entertainment.

  90. theAmericanist wrote:
    I want people educated, to learn facts and the skills of thinking so they don’t WANT to fly it in the first place.

    So you want everyone free to think like you do? That is mighty nice of you.

    You obviously have a great command of American history (and I mean that sincerely) so you must know that the Civil War is not as clear cut as you try to make it out to be. There were heros and villians on both sides. The North did plenty of raping and pillaging and Lincoln ignored the constitution in order to win his war. You can argue that Lincoln was justified because of the situation but surely you recognize that is a debatable point?

    You fail to point out such inconvienent sources of friction as the North taxing Southern textiles to try and protect the Northern industy. The North wanted the South to supply the raw materials for their industry but they did not want the South to develop industrially as well because that would put the North at a disadvantage since they were having to buy raw materials from the South. There is no doubt that slavery was a big part of the reason the South went to war. Anyone who denies that needs to go back on read some of the letters of succession from the Southern states and it makes it very clear.

    I have never cared for the Stars and Bars and I think that it is tacky to display it in public. If you read comments on this site much you will know that I have generally been very supportive of the school’s right to enforce a dress code. But once you ask the student’s express theirself you have to be prepared for this type of stuff. It would be interesting to know what some of the other student’s “expressions” were.

  91. Americanist: Yes, secession was settled when Lee surrendered to General Grant. You argued that it was settled BEFORE 1860, and that Southern states had no right to do it. And, as I’ve shown, that burning question most definitely was NOT settled prior to the Civil War. Unless you are going to argue with Shelby Foote. Good luck.

    This also refutes your original contention that the Confederacy was attempting to overthrow the freely elected federal government by force. The Southern states were attempting to leave the union…if Abraham Lincoln and Congress had said, “These states joined voluntarily, therefore they can leave of their own will,” guess what would have happened? Not a shot would have been fired, and the South would have busied itself with forming a new government to run a newly independent nation. Even during the war, the South’s main goal was to force the North to recognize the right of the Confederate states to secede from the union. The South wasn’t interested in overthrowing the federal government, nor was it interested in permanently conquering the Northern states. (The invasion of Pennsylvania, which culminated in the Battle of Gettysburg, was an attempt to get the North to cry “uncle” by capturing a major railroad yard at Harrisburg. It was not an attempt to conquer Pennsylvania.) Once the goal of recognition of the right to secede was secured, the South would not have tried to overthrow the federal government anymore than the 13 colonies tried to overthrow the British government in the wake of the American Revolution.

    As for your contention that secession was driven solely by the desire to preserve slavery – once again, you are wrong. The South had a whole list of disagreements with the North. The South advocated free trade and opposed tariffs supported by Northern businessmen to protect growing industries. The South wanted access to a wide variety of manufactured goods from Europe at competitive prices. At the same time, it didn’t want its agricultural products (primarily cotton) hampered in world markets by tariffs.

    The rural, agrarian South opposed spending on internal improvements. The North, with its growing industrial economy, wanted money spent on railroads and improved roads to open up the national market. (Think it is a coincidence that the first transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, AFTER the North’s victory in the Civil War?)

    Demographics also worried the South. The North had been growing, thanks to immigrants attracted to its burgeoning heavy industries. The South attracted very few immigrants. Thus, it was becoming culturally more distant from the North.

    Now, the dispute over slavery may have been a BIG factor in secession, but it was just one of many. Even more importantly, it was the one touted the loudest by both sides, as it masked other areas of contention between the two sections in the years leading up to the Civil War. As you yourself have said…facts, facts. Might want to follow your own advice.

    As for the idea that the Confederate flag represents “treason.” Wrong again. The South – and a fair number of people in the North – saw secession as an attempt to leave an organization that it had voluntarily joined. The South lost that point when it lost the war, but that doesn’t change its view of secession or why it seceded in the first place.

    And as for your contention that the South’s attempt to enforce slavery through federal laws somehow later negates its right to secede, because it availed itself to laws passed by the same federal government it later tried to leave – wrong again. At first, the Southern states tried to use the federal government to protect its “peculiar institution.” Obviously, that approach wasn’t going to work in the long run. The slave-holding states were going to be outnumbered by both Northern population growth and the country’s continued expansion into territories not hospitable to slave-based agriculture. Based on simple demographics and historical trends, the South would soon be outvoted on EVERYTHING – abolition, tariffs, spending on internal improvements, etc. Reading the writing on the wall, the South went to “Plan B” – secession.

    Instead of worrying about what this kid knows and doesn’t know, and repeatedly denigrating him in your posts, may I suggest you do a better job of educating yourself about our country’s history.

  92. theAmericanist says:

    (smile) Folks DO try hard to deny the obvious, don’t they? By Robert E. Lee’s beard, the question is: why?

    It is just such a crock, to argue that it was losing debates over tariffs, or free trade, or Lincoln’s brief and focused suspension of habeus corpus in Maryland, that ’caused’ the war, ‘not just slavery’. Ye gods and little fishes, READ the debates in Congress before the war. Read what Confederates like LQC Lamar said — or, for that matter, the Cornerstone speech I’ve quoted twice.

    On that, the single central point of evidence in this long thread, Ross has nothing to say. Hell, I quoted the FREAKING VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CONFEDERACY that secession was motivated to protect slavery and white supremacy, which he said just that clearly AFTER SECESSION AND BEFORE THE WAR.

    If Ross would like to cite a f’r instance backing up his hallucination, I’d suggest he do so. He might also read up on John C. Calhoun, or the Nullification Crisis: there ain’t a lot to his argument, such as it is — if you’re not trying to concoct an apology for slavery.

    As for Geeber’s notion that secession just MIGHT have been legit and not treasonable, well: you’re missing the single most significant episode of patriotic charity in American history. Sorta thing that OUGHT to be taught in high school, don’t ya think?

    Then as now, military officers swear an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution of the United States, and to respect the chain of command. Under the Constitution, the President — not the several states, nor their legislatures — is the Commander in Chief. Lee, Longstreet, et al, were officers in the UNITED STATES Army. They did not hold commissions in the states’ militia. When they disobeyed the lawful orders of their Constitutionally-mandated commander in chief to take up arms against the national government — arms that BELONGED to that government, by the way — they committed treason.

    Lee himself understood this, ya know. He considered it quite likely that he would be hanged when the South lost the war — lawfully, because he had violated his oath and taken up arms.

    Lincoln also understood it. That’s why he reminded the South in his first inaugural that he had solemnly pledged to have nothing to do with slavery where it existed, merely to prevent its extension. (One has to wonder at folks in the 21st century who regard that as tyranny imposed on the South.) He noted in that address that therefore it was up to the secessionists, not the North, whether there was to be Civil War — precisely because he took seriously, as a moral commitment, the very same oath that Lee and so many others violated: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (Didn’t you guys ever READ Lincoln’s Inaugural Addresses?)

    When the war ended — fought, as Churchill wrote after Pearl Harbor “to the last bloody inch” — it was more than likely, it was a legal slam dunk, that a whole lot of Confederate officers were gonna be hanged for treason. They had disobeyed their orders, took up arms against their lawful military superiors, and gotten 600,000 Americans killed.

    Instead — led by Grant and Sherman, not the Congress — they were allowed to go home, with their horses and sidearms. In the next few years, they were allowed to return to full citizenship, provided only that they once more swore the oath which they had violated, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution that, by THIS time, abolished slavery and established national citizenship.

    Man, you guys are so focused on a myth that you’re missing the really important thing that happened — and how.

    Remember, part of the price of Lincoln’s intensely legal interpretation of the Civil War, is that — as a matter of the law — all of the CAUSES of the war remained intact when the war ended. That is, as a legal matter the Confederate states had not “seceded”. That was damned important. For example, Dred Scott was still Constitutional law until the 14th amendment overturned it — and abolitionists understood that if the determination of what amended the Constitution included the former slave states, then the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments would not be ratified. That’s why it’s called “Reconstruction”, guys — or did you buy that carpetbagger, Gone with the Wind bullshit? It never occurred to you that they made each and every former Confederate formally pledge to accept the abolition of slavery and the citizenship of EVERYONE born in the United States before they could vote again? That’s what “Reconstruction” meant.

    (grim smile) And as fr the charge that Union soldiers were ‘just as guilty’ as the South, let’s be clear: It’s a LIE. No other word for it. Sure, somebody should’ve counted Ben Butler’s spoons. But if ya wanna compare “250 years of unrequited toil” and “until every drop drawn with the lash is repaid with another drawn with the sword”, be my guest.

    As some folks have been kind enough to notice, this is something I’ve done a fair amount of work on. There is just ONE incident in the whole war that implicates Union soldiers in anything like the charge Ross made — Benjamin Butler’s order that New Orleans women who threw chamber pots at Union soldiers were to be considered prostitutes soliciting. That’s IT. There is no Union equivalent of Andersonville, much less the Fort Pillow massacre, nor Forrest’s order that any white officer commanding black troops would be shot, and any black troops taken prisoner would be shot or enslaved. Got that, Ross? NONE.

    Ross, if you know of any actual documentation of your charge — in the burning of Atlanta, the March to the Sea, the burning of Charleston, the campaigns in the West, you name it — state it. Cuz I’m calling you out — capisce?

    Otherwise, face it: you’re in D.W. Griffith territory.

    The fact is, this kid evidently bought into the same myth a lot of folks here grew up on: that the Confederacy wasn’t “really” about slavery, that the North was “really” just as bad, etc. That ‘massive resistance’ to desegregation wasn’t really an attempt to preserve Jim Crow in the South, but a defiance of Northern hypocrisy.

    You teach your kids that?

    What I’ve been observing is that this ain’t so. One reason we have schools is to educate folks out of such ignorance. THAT’s what failed with this kid.


  93. Amazing how one person can be so right and so wrong all at once.

  94. Walter E. Wallis says:

    tA, what would have happened if the proposal to buy all the slaves with federal money and free them had been allowed to go through? Would you have suggested it was worthier to kill half a million people and incinerate the South than to compromise and get on with it?
    That one fact, that the North rejected an opportunity to avoid the killing, puts the North right down in the hog wallow with the South. And you, defender of offense against the Stars and Bars, right alongide the other pigs.

  95. Fuzzy Rider says:

    Might I suggest:

    “The South Was Right” by Kennedy and Kennedy

    “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government” by Jefferson Davis

    “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo

    I could mention some others, too (I’m staring at over 200 volumes on the War for Southern Independence in my personal library)

    The meaning of the St. Andrew’s Cross battle flag was defined by the brave men who bled and died under it defending their homes and families from an invading enemy. Nothing we modern folks can say or do will ever change that. These were by and large honorable men fighting for (to them) an honorable cause. These terms were for THEM to define, based on their own beliefs and ideals- what we think, 140 years after the fact, is pretty much irrelevent.

    I do, and will, always fly the battle flag in rememberence of the courage of these men, and I will always bristle at the attemps of the folks in the ‘neo-abolitionist’ school of ‘Civil War’ history to dishonor their memory.

    Chuck Demastus runs an excellent internet newsletter “Souther Heritage News and Views”- contact him at [email protected] – for anyone interested in the southern heritage side of the flag argument.

  96. Mad Scientist says:

    I really wonder if theAmericanist ever gets tired of hearing himself talk.

  97. tA: “Ross, if you know of any actual documentation of your charge — in the burning of Atlanta, the March to the Sea, the burning of Charleston, the campaigns in the West, you name it — state it. Cuz I’m calling you out — capisce?”

    “The march to the sea ended at Savannah on the Atlantic coast in mid-December 1864.[260] In his official report of the march, Sherman estimated the total damage done by his men at $100,000,000, a huge sum in 1864.[261] Of that amount, he judged that twenty percent represented the military advantage for the Union and that the remainder was “simple waste and destruction.”[262]”

    Read the whole thing.

    The sound you hear is the house of cards tumbling down.

  98. Walter E. Wallis says:

    The South – You gotta love them – except for their cooking. They sure hate the color red in steak.

  99. theAmericanist says:

    Man, you guys really don’t get it, do you?

    Laura: destruction of civilian property WAS the whole military purpose of the march to the sea — to punish the South so that it would never try rebellion again. You don’t need to go so some tertiary source who thinks it was ‘wanton’. SHERMAN said that was the POINT. D-er.

    I evidently take Ross’ actual charge more seriously than you do — hell, than even he does. (I once had a frank and candid exchange of views on this in an editorial board meeting of a newspaper, when it printed a similarly stupid charge about American soldiers in Honduras: I take it personally, as an American, when folks make charges they can’t back up.)

    In many, if not most actual invasions, rape is a military instrument to terrorize and subjugate a civilian population — see Bosnia, Barbarossa, or the Soviets in Germany. There have been rare, isolated — and most importantly, criminally-prosecuted incidents of rape by American soldiers in wartime. But it has NEVER been a U.S. policy.


    So it is not just a lie, it is literally an offense against our country, for somebody to make a charge like tht without backing it up — which, forgive me Laura, you were dumb enough to confuse with the PURPOSE of the March to the Sea, which was the destruction of property, not the gangrape of Southern women. (See the difference? You might compare the abundantly documented sensitivities of the Confederates in New Orleans under Butler with, say, what happened in Poland during WW2, if you don’t understand the difference between burning a barn and dragging women into the street.)

    Fuzzy is just wrong — lol, trust me, you don’t want me publicly exposing your sources, dude: you don’t have to go very far into that tarpit to find the Klan and the CCC.

    (patiently) The South was not an independent nation, so the North did not “invade” it. (Ike didn’t “invade” Little Rock, either.) Sure, most Confederate soldiers didn’t own slaves, and lots of ’em fought simply because “they” were down South. Hell, there was even a rump group of Abolitionists who wanted to let the South go: “Wayward sisters, go in peace.”

    They were WRONG. (LOL — and aren’t some of you guys the same folks who bitch about a lack of values in history instruction? Start at home.)

    Several dozen ranking Confederate military officers (basically everybody of general rank, with a few exceptions like Forrest) were commissioned in the UNITED STATES Army — they had sworn their oaths to the national government, not the states. If there had been indictments and trials for Lee, etc., that would have pretty much ended the matter: there is no defense. When you swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful chain of command with the President as your commander in chief, and then you violate that oath by stealing rifles and artillery belonging to the U.S. government and shooting your West Point classmates and a few hundred thousand volunteers with ’em, there really isn’t much to say to explain your treason LEGALLY, now is there?

    Wallis — how should I know what “would” have happened on the Big Rocky Candy Mountain? You may live there, but I reside on THIS planet, in this country — the one preserved as a nation by preserving the Union in the Civil War, achieved by ABOLISHING slavery through the bloody sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of men whom you’ve slandered a half dozen times in this thread.

    Remember, too, that it was not the North that forced the war on the South. Lincoln was elected not to abolish slavery, but to contain it. In the months between his election and Fort Sumter, Lincoln did absolutely nothing to provoke the South: not a blessed thing.

    Re-read — hell, read it for the first time, evidently — what ranking Confederates like Alexander Stephens and LQC Lamar said AT THE TIME the Confederacy was for: founded on “the cornerstone”, the “great moral truth” of white supremacy as the justification for eternal slavery. He said this AFTER secession had started, and BEFORE the war began — for historians, that’s a helluva lot more authoritative than the racist apologist crap Fuzzy lines his shelves with.

    Man, you guys are pitiful. No wonder this kid was so badly educated: ostensible grownups tell him he can live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

  100. People who talk through their hats and make things up and express those things in the most offensive way possible, (“you were dumb enough”, thank you for that) just to stir folks up, are trolls in my book.

  101. theAmericanist says:

    (smiling sweetly) Let’s see: I’ve cited Lucius Qintus Cinncinnatus Lamar, Nathan Bedford Forrest, U.S. Grant’s slave-inheriting wife and William Tecumseh Sherman’s commands regarding the March to the Sea, quoted CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens’s “Cornerstone” speech (including the date and place it was delivered) and Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural on Union policy to avoid war and the Second on how to end it, mentioned the Nullification Crisis, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Law, th Dred Scott decision and three Constitutional amendments, along with the 14th amendment suffragist case that determined voting was NOT a Federal issue, Brown vs. the Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act.

    Kindly tell us, Laura — who confused rape as policy with burning barns — just what have I made up?

    I say again, the sad thing is that evidently nobody taught Tyler Shultz the reality of the Confederacy or of massive resistance to killing Jim Crow.

    The wonder is that so many folks posting here don’t want to correct THAT.

  102. Mad Scientist says:

    I still wonder: Do you ever tire of hearing the sound of your own voice?

  103. Mad Scientist says:

    Oh, and when will you post a retraction of when you confused the American Flag and the Banner of Communism?

    Still waiting for that one.

  104. Anonymous says:

    Mad, you’re illiterate. I had been willing to let you slide, but geeze, you INSIST:

    For anybody who cares, Wallis had posted: “How long did the Star Spangled Banner fly over slavery? Why are blacks moving back South from many of the Northern “Liberal” cities? Why are Liberals all shook up about a display of the Confederate Battle Flag and yet accept a display of a flag that represents over a billion enslaved and millions murdered?….”

    I responded to the first part, in which he slurred the American flag (accurately, but still a slur) for having flown over slavery from roughly 1790 through 1863. I noted that this is the same American flag flew over, among other things, the Cornfield at Antietam. I noted THAT, just in case anybody cares, because it was perhaps the most blood-soaked acre in American history, on the bloodiest day in our history, which led directly the Emancipation Proclamation. Seemed only fair to point that out, after a man who evidently does NOT love America had attacked it, by slurring the flag.

    Get it now, Mad? If not, perhaps you might try remedial reading somewhere.

    Since Wallis’ second question was not only a distraction but a kind of thundering non-sequitur, I ignored it. Mad, being illiterate, evidently confused the attack on our flag (Wallis specified the American flag, regarding the thread’s topic, the Confederate flag and slavery) with his pathetic defense that he, um, meant something else — about which, I had said nothing at all: some things are too stupid to notice.

    (smiling sweetly) All ist klar, Mad?

  105. Walter E. Wallis says:

    tA yes, some of those Rebs actually defecated. And it stank.
    People still have an inherent right to divorce themselves from a government that no longer represents their viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is abhorent. To suggest otherwise is to condemn them to [gasp] INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or, in other words, to slavery. One man, one vote, one time is still wrong wrong wrong.
    Was there vileness in the South? Sure. Was that vileness closely matched by vileness in the North? Yes. Is there a case to be made that the confederate flag is a suitable instrument to rub the nose of Northern hypocrits in? Whatcha think?

  106. theAmericanist says:

    Wallis writes: “People still have an inherent right to divorce themselves from a government that no longer represents their viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is abhorent…”

    (grin) Man, it is priceless how this guy keeps proving my point. “People”… and just who did that exclude in the Lost Cause, bub?

  107. Walter E. Wallis says:

    I believe we have already conceded that women, slaves and often tenants were excluded from decision making on both sides of the Mason Dixon line and, at that time, throughout most of the rest of the world, too. You need not “prove” your point – it is painfully obvious to all of us.
    Your approval of slavery is very Yankee of you. Gotta keep them rednecks and peckerheads down in de trailer park.

  108. Mad Scientist says:

    And you tA are an imbecile. This was the exchange I was referring to:

    And I am waiting for a retraction of the accusation made by theAmercianist. To wit: “LOL — and as for Wallis’ notion that the Stars and Stripes represents slavery, I recall that this was the flag that flew over the Cornfield at Antietam, among other places, which speaks rather more eloquently about who is a “pathetic asshole”.”

    Specifically when Walter answered his little quiz thusly: “The flag that I suggested needed no mention was any of the flags of Communism considered tres chic on campi all across the land and, not just by chance, very often in organizations in the forefront of those objecting to the Confederate flag.

    There is a huge difference between something flying over slavery and it actually representing slavery.


  109. theAmericanist says:

    Hmm…. I had concluded these guys were ignorant and illiterate, but now I perceive that they’re nuts.

    Example one: “Your approval of slavery is very Yankee of you…”


    Example two: “There is a huge difference between something flying over slavery and it actually representing slavery.”

    (double-take) A sensible — not to speak of honest — person would have conceded, Mad, that Wallis had made the comparison of slavery with the stars and stripes to which I objected.

    Y’all have left your marbles behind. And, for the record, I live — and own property, in fact — below the Mason-Dixon line.

  110. Fuzzy Rider says:

    “The American people, North and South, went into the {Civil} war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects, and what they thus lost they have never got back.” – H.L. Mencken

  111. tA: Your passion is obvious. Give it up already. The kid wanted the flag in HIS picture. The first amendment still allows this young man to express HIS personality. Brilliant opinions as well as stupid ones are still permitted. What is so painfully obvious that you don’t seem to get is, despite your wealth of knowledge, there are millions of us who think that you are WRONG. You remind me of one of those college professors who give essay questions on tests and the only right answer is the answer YOU gave in class. You seem to take it as a personal affront if one disagrees with you.

    Check out the number of times you have posted just on this one thread to give your opposing view.

    As I posted earlier, move on.

  112. Walter E. Wallis says:

    tA, I assert that when you deny the right of a people to change their form of government you are approving of slavery.
    Like you, I object that the Stars and Stripes flew so long over slavery, but it happened, get over it. The moving finger wrote or words to that effect.
    While I have killed people and broken things in my life, I try to avoid hating people, because mostly their disagreements with me have been a product of their own impoverished environment.
    Now do what the other folk say, run along and don’t play in the street.

  113. theAmericanist says:

    Fair enough — the last word, or at least, MY last word.

    It’s legit to disagree, but it is NOT a reasonable disagreement to say “Well, because you and I have different opinions, we will have to agree to disagree.” That is a misunderstanding of civics, because it precludes cooperation. It alienates. There is no traction when folks merely exchange, rather than sift opinions.

    I had posted, waaay up high, on the narrow point of the thread, that this kid had ‘expressed himself’ with the Stars and Bars, that there are just two meanings for that flag: treason and massive resistance to desegregation.

    The only actual response to that factual observation is the idea that no, the kid really meant a vague idea of rebellion, that any symbol can mean anything.

    I noted further that one purpose of education is to give folks access to the facts and skills that empower them to get beyond that nonsense: the “think system” of Professor Harold Hill was a con, ya know.

    What ensued was a series of demonstrable falsehoods about the nature of the Confederacy, of secession, and of massive resistance, all wrapped up in the Stars and Bars that this kid had in his photograph.

    It’s perfectly legit for somebody to argue any of those things. But for such an argument to be REASONABLE, folks have to resort to, um, reasons.

    The nature of the Confederacy, the motivation for secession, is simply not open to reasonable disputation: the founders of that misbegotten enterprise were quite explicit. I quoted two of ’em — Alexander Stephens and LQC Lamar. Was there a rebuttal with similarly authoritative primary sources? Nope.

    Likewise, I noted that prior to the desegregation by Supreme Court that began in 1954, the symbol for the Lost Cause was not the Stars and Bars, but the burning cross. If the Confederate flag really meant the “southron heritage”, as folks here have claimed, one of those two things could not have been true: either the Stars and Bars would have been the symbol of the Lost Cause BEFORE 1954 (and not the burning cross), or else the burning cross would have meant something else. (Begging the question: what?)

    Was there a rebuttal? Nope.

    This kid was miseducated. JJ runs an education blog. The reaction to this kid’s miseducation in this thread, shows HOW his education was neglected. It even hints at why — cuz some folks love ignorance when it suits their prejudices and the godawful crap with which they identify.

  114. cajiedog says:

    Whew! i have read so many wrong ignorant history quotes and biased anti southern opinions in these post against the Confederate Flag no wonder we had a war with the supporters of lincoln and didn’t want to be a any compact with them!

    This is about the stupidest statement I have ever read = The sole purpose for secession was to preserve slavery, and the rights of slave holders over their human property (including rape, the sale of children, torture and murder)

    and this! they lost one national election, so Lincoln took office – he won by fraud, received not one vote from the South, not one.

    Recent statements by the NAACP president in the news should tell you the truth of the matter – a hate, divisive, race baiting organazation has for years used Our Confederate Flag and Symbol to persecute Southernors and rail against us throughtout this country with our tax money. NAACP has put the SKEER on everybody in this country, yet you still support and believe what they tell you. Where is the OUTRAGE!

    The true story of the North and Black people can be found in books like: Equal but not Free – Blacks were bottled up in the South by the Yankee government heads before and after the WAR (by reconstruction) – bottled up there because the other states did not want them living around them!

    Ty is just another victim of the tyrant NAACP – who are always causing problems and using lying abusive threatening language to down grade any Southernor. they are Race biaters up to the hilt!

    When are people going to wake up and dish this tax exempt organization, the NAACP does nothing but divide and cause hate these days. If it wasn’t for the liberal media they would have been dead in the water a long time ago. We Southernors have suffered and been spit on long enough. We are not taking it anymore.


    ps: will the Mississippi poster please leave the state, she is a traitor of the worse kind.

  115. cajiedog says:

    The first Jew to serve in the US Governemnt was from the South! He lived next door to two black plantation owners. New Orleans had before the occupation the most advanced black community the world has ever seen! destroyed of course by the Yankee invasion.

    You Never Can Subjugate Us

    Judah Philip Benjamin of Louisiana
    Senate, December 31 1860

    The wrongs under which the South is now suffering, and for which she seeks redress, seem to arise chiefly from a difference in our construction of the Constitution. You, Senators of the Republican party, assert, and your people whom you represent assert, that, under a just and fair interpretation of the Federal Constitution, it is right that you deny that our slaves, which directly and indirectly involve a value of more than four thousand million dollars, are property at all, or entitled to protection in Territories owned by the common Government.

    You assume the interpretation that it is right to encourage, by all possible means, directly and indirectly, the robbery of this property and to legislate so as to render its recovery as difficult and dangerous as possible; that it is right and proper and justifiable, under the Constitution, to prevent our mere transit across a sister State, to embark with our property on a lawful voyage, without being openly despoiled of it. You assert, and practice upon the assertion, that it is right to hold us up to the ban of mankind in speech, writing, and print, with every possible appliance of publicity, as thieves, robbers, murderers, villains, and criminals of the blackest dye, because we continue to own property which we owned at the time that we all signed the compact; that it is right that we should be exposed to spend our treasure in the purchase, or shed our blood in the conquest, of foreign territory, with no right to enter it for settlement without leaving behind our most valuable property, under penalty of its confiscation.

    You practically interpret this instrument to be that it is eminently in accordance with the assurance that our tranquility and welfare were to be preserved and promoted; that our sister States should combine to prevent our growth and development; that they should surround us with a cordon of hostile communities for the express and avowed purpose of accumulating in dense masses, and within restricted limits, a population which you believe to be dangerous, and thereby force the sacrifice of property nearly sufficent in value to pay the public debt of every nation in Europe.

    This is the construction of the instrument that was to preserve our security, promote our welfare, and which we only signed on your assurance that that was its object. You tell us that this is a fair construction – not all, some say one thing, some say another; but you act, or your people do, upon this principle. You do not propose to enter into our States, you say, and what do we complain of? You do not pretend to enter into our States to kill or destroy our institutions by force. Oh, no. You imitate the faith of Rhadamistus, who, according to Tacitus’s account, having sworn to Mithridates that he would not employ either poison or steel against him, caused him to be smothered under a heap of clothes.

    You propose simply to close us in an embrace that will suffocate us. You do not propose to fell the tree; you promised not. You merely propose to girdle it, that it dies. And then, when we tell you that we did not understand this bargain this way, that your acting upon it in this spirit releases us from the obligations that accompany it; that under no circumstances can we consent to live together under that interpretation and say: “we will go from you; let us go in peace”; we are answered by your leading spokesmen: “Oh, no; you cannot do that; we have no objection to it personally, but we are bound by our oaths; if you attempt it, your people will be hanged for treason.

    We have examined this Constitution thoroughly; we have searched it out with a fair spirit, and we can find warrant in it for releasing ourselves from the obligation of giving you any of its benefits, but our oaths force us to tax you; we can dispense with everything else; but our consciences, we protest upon our souls, will be sorely worried if we do not take your money.” [Laughter.] That is the proposition of the honorable Senator from Ohio, in plain language. He can avoid everything else under the Constitution, in the way of secession; but how is he to get rid of the duty of taking our money he cannot see. [Laughter.]

    Now, Senators, this picture is not placed before you with any idea that it will act upon any one of you, or change your views, or alter your conduct. All hope of that is gone. Our committee has reported this morning that no possible scheme of adjustment can be devised by them all combined. The day for the adjustment has passed. If you would give it now, you are too late.

    And now, Senators, within a few weeks we part to meet as Senators in one common council chamber of the nation no more forever. We desire, we beseech you, let this parting be in peace. I conjure you to indulge in no vain delusion that duty or conscience, interest or honor, imposes upon you the necessity of invading our States or shedding the blood of our people. You have no possible justification for it. I trust it is in no craven spirit, and with no sacrifice of the honor or dignity of my own State, that I make this last appeal, but from far higher and holier motives. If, however, it shall prove vain, if you are resolved to pervert the Government framed by the fathers for the protection of our rights into an instrument for subjugating and enslaving us, then, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the universe for the rectitude of our intentions, we must meet the issue that you force upon us as best becomes freemen defending all that is dear to man.

    What may be the fate of this horrible contest, no man can tell, none pretend to foresee; but this much I will say: the fortunes of war may be adverse to our arms; you may carry desolation into our peaceful land, and with torch and fire you may set our cities in flames; you may even emulate the atrocities of those who, in the war of the Revolution, hounded on the blood-thirsty savage to attack upon the defenceless frontier; you may under the protection of your advancing armies, give shelter to the furious fanatics who desire, and profess to desire, nothing more than to add all the horrors of a servile insurrection to the calamities of civil war; you may do all this – and more, too, if more there be – but you never can subjugate us; you never can convert the free sons of the soil into vassals, paying tribute to your power; and you never, never can degrade them to the level of an inferior and servile race. Never! Never! [Loud applause in the galleries.]

    Great Debates in American History, Volume Five, pages 384-387
    Current Literature Publishing Company, New York, 1913

    FREE BUT NOT EQUAL, THE MIDWEST AND THE NEGRO DURING THE CIVIL WAR, by V. Jacque Voegeli, University of Chicago Press, 1967. In this informative book Mr. Voegeli analyzes the attitude of The Democratic Party in Midwestern thought before, during the war and during reconstruction. Mr. Voegeli demonstrates that keeping the Negro “in the South” was a primary aim of the Midwest in the cause of the war.

    He points out that the primary reason the Midwest supported the Emancipation Proclamation was to prevent Negroes from moving into the Midwest and North. Interestingly enough, Mr. Voegeli documents that a main thrust of the Reconstruction Period was the same fear of the Midwest of having an insurgence of free Negroes inundating the Midwest after the end of hostilities.

    I have selected three excerpts from this well documented and researched book to make this point. “Going right to the heart of the matter, they emphasized that northern worries about a Negro inflow and racial adjustment were groundless because the freedmen were going to remain in the South. According to this idea, slavery was a national sin and disgrace but the problems of freedom and race were to be worked out in the South. (p.20)

    Next, “In May of 1863, for example approximately 300 Negroes were sent from St. Louis to St. Paul to fill a requisition by General Henry H. Sibley who apparently interned to use them as military laborers and Teamsters. Nevertheless for the time being, the practice of employing and caring for the blacks in the South had effectually sealed the vast majority of them in the region.

    Lacking passes, transportation, money, and usually the desire to go North, most of the freedmen remained in the South under the supervision and care of the army. In this way, the threat of a great migration was destroyed. (p.110) And finally,

    “In searching for answers to the race problems in the nation at large, the people of the Midwest deliberately turned away from one suggestion that might have spared much anguish: that of reducing the concentration of Negroes in the South by diffusing them throughout all of the states or by settling them on the public domain in the west. …it encouraged the freedmen to stay in the South although their labor was badly needed in the North…

    Judah Philip Benjamin of Louisiana Senate, December 31 1860 speech was on TARGET! Having sent all the blacks they could to the South in the first place; the main focus was to keep them there – The yankee purpose all long was to Bottle the blacks up in the South so we don’t have to live with them as our neighbors! In spite of all the evidence that proves the yankee plans, who has the courage or the guts to tell the truth and stop blaming the South for what was perpetuated upon them by first the King and then the other States of this so called Union. The South deserves to be praised and credited with bringing up a difficult population of black peoples thrust upon them by others.

  116. “ps: will the Mississippi poster please leave the state, she is a traitor of the worse kind.”

    Having been raised a Southern lady, I can’t give this assertion the response it deserves.

  117. cajiedog says:

    If the shoe fits wear it!

    Love it or Leave it!

  118. abbsbtgog says:

    Coool. One of my brothers tipped me off that I needed to stop by here and check-out this thread. Man, was he ever right about the quality of education represented in this blog. Your “americanist” seems to be a real jewel of a historian, there folks!
    Sounds like he may be a homo.
    I bet he uses a Mac, too.

  119. cajiedog says:

    The americarist is not so hot, in just about everything he wrote he is WRONG! like this

    Finally — what lies under all this is the vague and contemptible idea that, as Wallis put it, “the liberal north has given the South lessons in keeping the black man in his place..”


    as was pointed out in my post earlier, the freedmen were bottled up in the South under RECONSTRUCTION government CONTROL until well after the 1880s

    get your facts straight.

    we took our states back from the carpetbaggers and looters and corrupt black politicians of the day and we are in the process of doing it again and we will do it every time our STATE CONSTITUTIONS are violated.

  120. Walter E. Wallis says:

    The South fed its slaves – the North just shoved theirs into ghettos and denied them any but the meanest employment.
    The South after emancipation allowed sharecropping, a demeaned but honorable form of capitalism. The North denied blacks most avenues toward advancement by excluding them from professional licenses, unions and the freedom to live where they could afford to live.
    In a sense the Stars and Bars are a tribute to honesty while the Stars and Stripes are a tribute to keeping the darkie in his place.
    I don’t need academic citations and learned papers because I lived it and observed it and fought against racial discrimination when it meant something, not solely because I was noble, but because I recognized that racism was a tool that people in power used to oppress all of us. “You want a raise? Hey, I can get a nigger to do your job a dollar cheaper.”
    During a layoff in 1960, I took employment with a shipyard in Frisco where an electrician’s wages was several dollars an hour lower than “Uptown.” Lots of black electricians there, because black electricians could not get work “Uptown.”
    I am not a Southerner, and their food is mostly designed to hide the tast of lack of refrigeration, but the ignorant condemnation of the South’s symbol by appologists for J. Crow just don’t go down well.
    tA, you don’t like sharing a country with Rebs, try France. You woould be right at home there.

  121. I’ve read and reread the comments here and still have to come down on the side of supporting the young man in his choice of the battle flag and shotgun for his senior picture. The school said “express yourself” and he did. His pride in his Southern heritage and skill at trap shooting. And at risk of repeating some points and (Americanist don’t bother to reply you won’t change my mind and your insults only cause minor irritation mainly at your ignorance)first the “Stars and Bars” refers to the 1 National flag of the Confederacy, second Nathen Bedford Forrest did organize the first inception of the KKK but after younger more vicious men came into the ranks and began killing indiscriminately, Forrest disbanded and disassociated himself from the organization. By the way the headquarters for the present day KKK is in Indiana not any of the Southern states. Thirdly to fixate on slavery as the main cause of the War of Northern Aggression is to blatantly ignore history. The Southern people had been pissed on so long by the North that something had to give. Fourth the Emancipation Proclaimation freed no one. It was a politically motivated action, mainly to keep the North from giving up on the war, i.e. New York draft riots etc. Lincoln was as racist a man and in some cases more so than any Southern man at that time. He’s not the great savior the history writers have made him out to be. His own words prove otherwise.
    And lastly the right of any state to secceed was Constitutionally correct. It isn’t now because of the illegaly passed 14th amendment. Lincoln and his minions did everything in their power to produce a large powerful centralized government and pretty well succeeded. That was NOT what our founding fathers envisioned and exactly what the Southern states feared and prompted them to take action. Slavery is not right in any way shape or form but to understand the actions and words of individuals during that time you have to understand the way things were then. You can’t apply 21 century thinking to 1800’s way of life. In other words you HAVE to study the history and know the people as best you can before you can accurately understand them. Something that Americanist doesn’t get, he can quote the political men til he’s blue in the face but it was the people who did the fighting and I don’t believe that approx. 94% of a population would willing fight a war to preserve the right of 6% to own anything. I know my ggggrandfather didn’t fight in that war to preserve slavery and I have that in writing. He and thousands just like him never own another human being in their life. But preserving their freedom from Northern tyranny was foremost in his mind.

  122. nobody imnportant says:

    Now we have a new victim class: Confederate Apologists.

  123. Walter E. Wallis says:

    Bull – nobody apologized for confederates, I was attacking hypocrites who pretend that the North was the fairy godmother of blacks while the South was Ogre personified. If, after what has been noted here, you still hold Yankees good, Rebs evil, then whatever the public paid for your education was wasted. Go play in the traffic.

  124. cajiedog says:

    WHO WE ARE! (and ps for the lady from MS)
    What is a Nation? Southrons as a People-Group

    by Nat Rudulph

    Some would say that in this shrinking world of the global village, the mobility of population has diluted the inhabitants of Dixie to the point of non-existence as a separate people-group.

    However, a look at the distribution of surnames in different regions indicate that much less migration has occurred than is commonly believed. Names which are historically Southern remain in great concentration in Dixie.

    The name Hardee would be most often identified by the average individual as a fast food establishment. One acquainted with history would know of General Hardee, who wrote the infantry tactics book used by both Union and Confederacy. He is buried in Selma, Alabama. Today there are just under 2,400 Hardee household across the US, and almost half of these are in the Carolinas, which also happens to be the location of the restaurant chain’s headquarters, as well as General Hardee’s homeplace. The Hardee name has remained primarily in the South, even after more than 200 years on this continent, with 2,089 of them (87.4%) located in just 10 of the Confederate states. Only 5 households are in all of New England, 7 in New York state.

    That famous secessionist William L. Yancey would find his surname today mainly in Georgia — 511. Texas is second with 428, Virginia third with 398. Seventy-two percent of the Yanceys reside in ‘demographic’ Dixie. These states hold only 29% of the total US population.

    What about Thurmond? A patriotic 1,776 listings are found, and 883, nearly half, live in the 4 states of Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri. More reside in Georgia (321) than all the Yankee states west of the Mississippi combined.

    North Carolina ranks first in a number of famous Southern names. Helms has 10,611 households in the US, with 2,537 in NC (24%). Sixty-nine percent still live in the 13 states represented by the stars on the Confederate flag. North Carolina is also home to 41% of the Pegram listings, and 76% of them (1,114 of 1,462) make their home in Dixie. North Carolina leads in Lassiters, occuring 1,227 of 4,047 times (30% ). All told, 80% live in the South.

    Confederate general Edmund Pettus is an Alabama hero with a popular surname in the state today (16% of the US total). Another Alabama Confederate name is Jemison — 24% of all US listings occur in Alabama. The state abounds in folk named Turberville and Tuberville, 46% of the US total, with 92% in Dixie.

    Rhett and Gist are famous in South Carolina, and 25% of each still live there today. More Blackwells live in South Carolina than any other state.

    Culpepper occurs 3,497 times, and 671 are in Georgia (19%). Then comes Texas with 580, and Alabama with 325. 84% of these folks still live in old Dixie.

    Eighty percent of the Rawls live in the thirteen Southern states plus Oklahoma (2,782 of 3,487).

    Flatt occurs 417 times in Tennessee, 22.5% of the US total of 1592. There are more Flatts on the two streets of Chesnut Avenue and Flatt Street In Cookeville, Tennessee, than in all six states of New England combined.

    Grizzard is a well known Southern surname occurring 89% of the time in Dixie. And more Dabneys and Mosbys still reside in Virginia than any other state.

    This is not a scientific study, and no factors other than name are taken into account. Nevertheless, these random samples show that names peculiar to this region, most of which can be traced to migrations before 1800, have remained generally confined to the South, and are likely representative of all Southern migration patterns. The implication is that the only ‘melting pot’ most Southerners have been in, regardless of their name, is a Southern one and an Anglo-Celtic one. The sense of a family belonging to a piece of land, and loyalty to kin are sentiments which are still with us, and have contributed to this characteristic.

    The Southern people have much to regain and reclaim. But we still have all the characteristics of a nation.

    Differences in the characteristics that distinguish a people as having a separate identity were evident in the South long before 1776. Observers at that time noted the Southern dialect, distinctive customs, mores, and thinking. Thomas Jefferson in 1785 wrote a French friend that Southerners were ‘indolent and hostile, but polite.’ Northerners, he said, were mainly ‘out to make a buck.’

    The University of North Carolina surveyed folks asking them to identify the main characteristics of Southerners. The answers came out almost identical both in and out of the South, and Southerners were different from folks in other parts of the country. The top characteristics of Southrons were, in order of preference:




    4)Loyal to family

    A ‘Nation’ is commonly understood as being identical to a ‘country’, but this is true only in the broadest meaning of the word. In the strict sense, a political entity such as Canada is a ‘country’, but the French-speaking people of Quebec are a ‘nation’. A ‘people-group’ is the most accurate way of defining ‘nation’. It is a group of people with a distinct culture, common language, blood ties, and history. For example, we speak of the ‘Basque nation’, which though they cannot be found on a map, are a definite people-group.

    Today, every people-group is vying for autonomy. Self-determination, devolution, and secession are vital forces. When our Confederate forbearers sought to secede, they were going against the stream. The world was moving at that time toward consolidation, and bigger empire. Though their main motivating principle was the right to self-government, THERE WAS A DEEPER AND SUBTLER FACTOR DRIVING THIS POLITICAL EXPRESSION (emphasis mine). That was the cultural differences between the inhabitants of the North, whose mother was Massachusetts, and those of the South, whose civilisation sprang initially from Virginia. Although there were other varied settlements in all sections, the foundational influence was laid down by these two early colonies. Differences were amplified by the fact that immigrants to the South came mostly from the Celtic fringe, so that the Celtic culture has been preserved and carried on to a much greater extent in the South. The North has also had more late immigration (my words-who didn’t know a thing about Southern participants in the founding of this country).

    The Southern ‘people-group’ was a nation before the War of Secession from Great Britain, and we have continued to be a nation even after 130 years of reconstruction, and a policy of cultural genocide by our Yankee conquerors.

    Whether one travels today to rural Virginia or eastern Texas, the farms of Florida, or southern Missouri, a striking kinship can be observed among the people. One finds the consciousness of a shared history, evidence of an Anglo-Celtic heritage, and similar ‘Bible Belt’ religious attitudes. Profound differences from their neighbours to the north are evident in communicating, relating, and living. There are greater differences between Southerners and New Yorkers than there are between New Yorkers and citizens of Ontario.

    Dixie’s cultural and national consciousness has been so distorted and downtrodden, however, it appears at times non-existent. Even though a survey by the University of North Carolina found that 17% of those in the South think that Dixie would be better off as an independent country, 26% of it’s residents do not even consider themselves Southerners! Self-abased Southerners take speech classes to eliminate their accent, so they can be ‘culturally correct’ as well as politically correct.

    Instead of looking to Southern creativity, centres of learning draw their sustenance from outside. Like Patty Hearst, the Southerner’s own identity has been so intensely assaulted that they have taken on the attributes and cause of their abusers. They have adopted as their own sentiment a degrading stereotype of the South.

    Such a stereotype was voiced by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) a few years ago as he spoke on the floor of the US House: ‘…typical of the South, union-hating, ignorant, hillbilly, revival-meeting attending bunch that represents everything unAmerican.’ (my words-GIVE EM HELL right back in their face!)

    Notice that this fellow is a Republican. A lot of those people really think this way about Southerners, but usually refrain from saying it in public. However, when they need votes or volunteers they’re eating grits with the best of us. Can you imagine the howl if a similar comment was said about any other group from a legislative podium? This cultural genocide should be condemned in the strongest terms.

    Southerners should insist that their leaders, educators, and their broadcast media sound like them, and take pride in our beautiful language. Nothing is more pleasing when spoken in an articulate manner by Southern ladies and gentlemen. And Southern institutions should have Southern scholars with a Southern point of view. Why should we seek acceptance from a group of people who have fouled their own culture, and squandered the greatest inheritance in the world?

    Nat Rudulph is the editor of Southern Events.

  125. Mad Scientist says:

    Dude: learn how to post a link. Or just give the URL.

    PS: I’d like to be a fly on the wall if ever you and theAmericanist ever meet each other in a room.

  126. nobody important says:

    No you were attacking straw hypocrites. Neither the Americanist nor I said anything about the Union being “good” and the Rebs “evil”. I said that slavery was evil on a par with Nazism and that those who fought to preserve slavery were complicit in one of the greatest crimes of history. Please dispute that millions of humans were enslaved, denied all that we hold dear, that tens of thousands were murdered, beaten, raped and tortured. Everyone involved in this evil enterprise, whether they lived north of the Mason-Dixon line or south of it deserve all the contempt heaped upon them.

    Neither the Americanist nor I, were implying that Southerners today are any different in their attitudes from the rest of America. Plenty of responders here proved me wrong.

    And Walter, you especially, are acting just like a … liberal! Deny facts, change the subject, create straw man arguments, distort history, make hysterical ad hominem attacks.

  127. My ancestors moved into Mississippi when it was opened up as frontier. It is not for you or any other twerp to tell me I am not an authentic Southerner. Grow up.

  128. General Lee says:

    It’s just a picture. You’d think that the gun was pointing at the reader of the yearbook and that he was going to strangle said reader with the Confederate flag. Exactly who is being harmed by this picture. Will viewing this picture cause enslavement, injury, dismemberment or death of any member of his class or school ? Of course not.
    If he’s willing to be held up to public ridicule, being called “reb,” “wonky,” “cracker,” or worse, why are some many people so sensitive about this picture. It isn’t going to leap out of the page. Why are so many intimidated by a flag or a gun in a photograph ? chill out

  129. cajiedog says:

    so did my ancestors move into the Mississippi Territory by 1805, Wilkinson, MS in fact.

    my ancestors moved into the new Florida Parishs in Louisiana by 1805, a part of Louisiana never occupied. Wild animals the whole works.

    My ancestors came there from Virginia and South Carolina.

    and another set of My ancestors were in Huntsville, Alabama in 1800, before the treaty. They came there by way of Virginia and E. Tennessee.

    I have an ancestor who was an original settler in Jamestown, Virginia in 1620 and another one who was on the Mayflower in Plymouth, Mass.

    you see my forte is genealogy and social science.

    ps it is not nice to call people twerps, what does that make you?

  130. Walter E. Wallis says:

    Someone, early in this string, suggested that the act of displaying the Stars and Bars defined a person’s charactor and worth. I suggested that this was an oversimplification based on a simplistic misunderstanding of history. Any objective appraisal of the discussion to this point would agree with me. I denied nothing, merely filled in gaps in the knowledge of others, and anyone who has ever tasted grits will forgive me a little Ad Hominy.

  131. cajiedog says:

    “Society is an open ended partnership between generations. The dead, and the not yet born, are as much a part of society as the living. To dishonor the dead is to reject the relationship upon which society is built, the relationship of obligation between generations. Those who have lost respect for the dead, have ceased to be trustees of their inheritance.” –Gods and Generals director Ron Maxwell, guest of honor at the 2003 Sons of Confederate Veterans convention quoting Edmund Burke’s famous Parliament speech.

    Dear visitors, the above is the essence of what we are about. If you do not understand what it means, do not bother to read any further. You are no longer a trustee…or qualified to be one. For those of you who do understand, welcome to the Heritage Wars..

  132. cajiedog says:

    If you don’t believe it is the NAACP causing all this hate and division check your papers, or try goole. Recent report today

    Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP, said allowing the decal on patrol cars is offensive. “For African Americans in the state, that flag symbolizes a very painful past,” he said.

  133. cajieog says:

    “They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division … their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon,” Mr. Bond said during his welcoming remarks. “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”