Teen Sues Over Confederate Flag Prom Dress

[shesulsa]

C'mon, Technopunk. I'll don my orange shamrock dress and we'll go have some ale and then brawl it out!

Seriously, I understand the analogy you were trying to put forth, but my parents lived in the South and my maternal ancestors served - some as officers - in the Confederate Army. But my nationality is Irish / German. I suppose I could be proud of my heritage also and wear the Confederate flag, except that the Irish, as you well know, were also slaves upon entry to the country and were considered by some to be even lower than the darker-skinned immigrants who were brought here forcibly.

Okay, I'm German in ancestry. Shall I wear the Swastika? No. I'm Irish - shall I wear an IRA shirt? No. I'm of Southern heritage - shall I wear the Confederate flag? No. I'm English, shall I wear the British flag? No.

I *WEAR* NO FLAG! I pledge allegiance to the American Flag because I believe in the ideals that this country was founded on. If Miss Thang is proud of her heritage, then let her carry her darn dress on pole in a parade down Main Street in her town, like they let the NeoNazi's march in Skokie.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

OK, please show where--anywhere in your posts on the Civil War--you've discussed (or even admitted) what slavery actually was, what the South's part in starting the War was, the extent of the corruption surrounding Jefferson Davis, an example of the South's getting outgeneraled and outfought, or the extent to which mythology fed directly into the subsequent century of lynching and segregation.

Why? Those points are outside the scope within which I wrote, as I indicated. They are also meaningless within the context of this threads original purpose.

From [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Revisiting the Past : Part 2 - The Road to War : Causes
[/font]"[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A large number of people believe that the American Civil War was fought over the concept of slavery. While this despised institution was a core reason, the full scope is not as simple as it would seem.
.....
[/font]1: Slavery
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A complete examination of the institution of slavery in the United States is well beyond this article. Within this piece I will concern my self with 2 areas of research. They are “The North fought to free the slaves” and “The South fought to keep them in bondage”. I will not discuss the issue of if it was right or wrong. By today’s more enlightened standards, we find the concept of human bondage to be an evil. The viewpoint changes’ depending on where one is in history and geography."[/font]

In that article, I cited several sources, including the actual Articles of Seccession of several of the Confederate States.

The 2 published articles are not about strategy, tactics, mythology, etc. They are focused on their topics, not the tangents you insist on traveling.

Or, discuss this recurrent fantasy that the ONLY reason the South lost--so very like the recurrent fantasy that the only reason the Wehrmacht lost--was that they were economically beaten. They lost in part because Grant, Sherman and their bummers kicked their asses, much as Germany lost because Eisenhower, Patton and GI Joe (together with the Rooskies and the Brits) kicked their asses. Enough with this "Lee the genius," and "Rommel the Desert Fox."

Why should I, or anyone here in this thread (which was about censorship, freedom of expression, and similar, not racism, or civil war history BTW) continue to wander down those unrelated tangents you like to segment to?

The beginning of the war saw ineffecual and incompetent generals on the Union side, unable or unwilling to do what was needed to win. Even at Gettysburg, if Meade had counter attacked, he had an excellent opportunity to either crush or inflict a mortal wound to the ANV. He didn't.
Grant, Sheridan and Sherman were more than happy to throw as many bodies at the enemy as was needed, knowing full well there were more to fill the holes. I don't see them as great generals, but those who won a war of attrition....a tactic sadly used 40 years later in Europes trenches. Any moron can throw a few thousand men at the enemy...it takes a true General to bring them home alive.

They got beat. They're on the ash can of history, good riddance--and even if they couldn't figure out alternatives between slavery and wage-slavery, we can.

The winners write the history, the losers don't.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The US is the only nation that I'm aware of that has an entire semi-religon around it's flag. I am not aware of what the Confederate tradition was/is towards their flags, especially since they seemed to have a dozen + in their short life.

I see the issues in a few ways.

1 - Did the school have a right to deny her entry in the dress?
- The symbology is deemed offensive.
- She had been told previously not to wear it.
The question is, if it was more subtle, would they have still denied it?
If the dress was a Nazi flag, rather than a Confederate one, or a US flag, would they still have denied it?
So, I have to say yes, as long as the standard was equally enforced.
I would expect the same treatment if someone showed up with a Bloody Jesus dress, or a Green Man dress.
Tacky is Tacky, in all it's faces.

The school has a right to limit disruption at their event, for the many outweigh the few, in this case, the one.

She had options. A subtle silk scarf perhaps, or earings would make the same 'heritage' statement, without being deemed 'tacky'.

There is also the question of why she did it. Was it truely 'Southern Pride', or to make a statement and get attention?

For example, I run into alot of what we call 'wannabe' wiccans and pagans. These are the folks who have to cover everything they wear with a gazillion pentacles, etc, make sure they have all the books by Crowley and Ravenwolf, oublically 'cast spells', and want you to know they are so 'pagan'. They however almost always miss the true meaning of what they decorate themselves with. The true pagans, on the otherhand, are embarased by these attention seekers. The Gay community runs into similar issues. I think this issue is also similar....there are a number of uneducated folks who think 'it was all about the slaves', and use it as an excuse to be a bigoted *******...totally missing the bigger picture, which was as much cultural, as political, as social. They wave it, lay claim to it, but they do not understand it, or what it really means. Sadly, that also happens today, when people wave the US flag, pound their chests about freedom and rights...then want to herd all the arabs into camps.

Ignorance knows no bounds, nor do close minds. One can be "educated", and still ignorant.

We should leave flag and banner prints off of clothing, since that's just the right thing to do in honor of a patriotic banner, IMHO. Going to the prom in a dress with a pattern designed to upset certain members of the population is just plain wrong. When she's not at a school function, let her wear whatever she pleases.

I agree.

She made her statement...she doesn't have to ruin one of the highlights of highschool for her classmates.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The mythology around that idiotic dress depends upon: a) the fantasy that slavery wasn't that bad; b) the fantasy that the South fought the war for "states rights," c) the fantasy that that flag, and its attendant doctrines, played no serious part in subsequent racism; d) the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;" e) the fantasy of Southern military superiority.

And incidentally, green is worn on St. Patrick's as a symbol of Catholic Ireland and opposition to the Orange, which is the color of the House of Orange and Protestant ireland. Wearing one color or the other is exactly the same as wearing red or blue in certain parts of LA--and should you doubt this, my advice is to go cruising thru, say Ian Paisley's neighborhood wearing green on Union Day, or the slums of Armagh on St. Pat's, wearing orange.

The silly girl should be allowed to wear her silly dress, even though, when I was in Boy Scouts, I was taught that it's disrespectful to wear our Flag as an article of clothing. Let's just hope her underwear matched.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The mythology around that idiotic dress depends upon: a) the fantasy that slavery wasn't that bad;

According to some, it wasn't. It depends on ones position in time I suppose. Personally, I prefer freedom.

b) the fantasy that the South fought the war for "states rights,"

You mean the tens of thousands of Confederates that died did so to protect the institution of slavery only, despite the fact that less than 10% of them owned slaves? It had nothing to do with economic or political power? Wow. I guess South Carolina was lying when they wrote this.

c) the fantasy that that flag, and its attendant doctrines, played no serious part in subsequent racism;

Who said that? Certainly wasn't me. But while you condemn the Southern flags for the part they played in acts of barbarity, where is the same condemnation for the US Flag, which was the symbol under which sanctioned genocide was enacted against the Native Americans, the conquest of Hawaii, etc.? If you are going to rally against 1 symbol used for 140 years, please pay an equally fair amount of attention to the tyranny of the past 217+ years of the Stars and Stripes.

d) the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;"

I don't know if he was a knight, but by all accounts I've read, he was a Gentleman.

Robert E Lee:
- Graduated 2nd in class from West Point
- Repeatedly won distinction for conduct and bravery in Mexican War.
- Was appointed superintendent of West Point (3 years)
- Commanded the United States troops sent to deal with the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry.
- Offered the command of the Union field army about to invade the South, which he refused.

His Civil War record is impressive as well.

Little can be said of Lee's career as a commander-in-chief that is not an integral part of the history of the Civil War. His first success was the " Seven Days' Battle " in which he stopped McClellan's advance; this was quickly followed up by the crushing defeat of the Federal army under Pope, the invasion of Maryland and the sanguinary and indecisive battle of the Antietam. The year ended with another great victory at Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville, won against odds of two to one, and the great three days' battle of Gettysburg, where for the first time fortune turned decisively against the Confederates, were the chief events of 1863. In the autumn Lee fought a war of maneuver against General Meade. The tremendous struggle of 1864 between Lee and Grant included the battles of the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna, Cold Harbor and the long siege of Petersburg , in which, almost invariably, Lee was locally successful. But the steady pressure of his unrelenting opponent slowly wore down his strength. At last with not more than one man to oppose to Grant's three he was compelled to break out of his Petersburg lines (April 1865). A series of heavy combats revealed his purpose, and Grant pursued the dwindling remnants of Lee's army to the westward. Headed off by the Federal cavalry, and pressed closely in rear by Grant's main body, General Lee had no alternative but to surrender. At Appomattox Court House, on the 9th of April, the career of the Army of Northern Virginia came to an end.

More information is at http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About the General.htm which also lists several further references.

e) the fantasy of Southern military superiority.

See above. Also see Bull Run I&II, Shiloh, Fredricksburg, etc...hell, see the first 2-21/2 years. Some believe that if Lee had prevailed at Gettysburg, that things would have been different.

...

The silly girl should be allowed to wear her silly dress, even though, when I was in Boy Scouts, I was taught that it's disrespectful to wear our Flag as an article of clothing. Let's just hope her underwear matched.

But Robert, she wasn't wearing "Our Flag", therefore she was not doing anything disrespectful towards "Our Flag". Unless your flag is a Confederate Battle Flag?

In that case, yes, it was disrespectful. A little digging turned up some intel that both nations share the 'flag respect' concept.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/3501/handling.htm (Also has some interesting info on the history and significance of color guards, etc)

So, while we modern Americans mostly see clothing, etc made from the US flag as tacky, or worse, this looks to have fallen into the same tacky and disrespectful area, made worse by the bigotry commonly associated with the symbology.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Funny how the massacre and removal of my people from the Carolinas, Georgia and Tennessee rarely comes up in these discussions of the south.

Tony,
Can you either post or PM me some info on those events? I think I know what you're refering to, but would appreciate more intel.

Thanks!

 

[PeachMonkey]

You mean the tens of thousands of Confederates that died did so to protect the institution of slavery only, despite the fact that less than 10% of them owned slaves? It had nothing to do with economic or political power?

That economic and political power was based on a horrific institution that enslaved human beings. And a desire to extend the enslavement of human beings to further territories to the West, despite whitewashing about how the South really wanted to "get out of the slavery business".

If you are going to rally against 1 symbol used for 140 years, please pay an equally fair amount of attention to the tyranny of the past 217+ years of the Stars and Stripes.

Guys like Robert and I actually do point this stuff out, Bob, and usually get attacked as being anti-American for doing so. The difference is, of course, that the United States and its flag were not founded primarily on the basis of protecting those genocidal institutions.

No one is disputing that Lee was an excellent general, or that the South dominated the eastern front for the majority of the war. But the South was *not* militarily superior in the war; the North, with little trouble, divided the South's western territories from her, blockaded her ports, and attrited her manufacturing; in the climactic battle of the war, Lee was repulsed during the only Northern invasion; and Grant decisively defeated Lee once he took over the Army of the Potomac.

In fact, only Lee's generalship, combined with the incompetence of McClellan, kept the war running as long as it did. Any non-romantic study of the conflict will reveal these facts.

 

[Tgace]

In fact, only Lee's generalship, combined with the incompetence of McClellan, kept the war running as long as it did. Any non-romantic study of the conflict will reveal these facts.

IMHO Jackson's Valley Campaign was probably the best lead of the war. Wierd Guy and bizzarely killed by accident, but a first class tactician.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Peach,
With respect, I disagree with this: "No one is disputing that Lee was an excellent general".

Roberts comments "the fantasy of the, "knightly Lee;"", etc. can be seen as disputing that.

In any event, since he insists on continuing to muddy and tangent, as always, I'll exit this debate. I said my part on the original topic, and even several of the historical tangents brought up...I've nothing to add to the original topic, and the Civil War history is best discussed in another thread, I think.

Good day all.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Thanks for the personal insults, Bob. Apparently, any time you don't agree, or don't follow what's said, it's easier to write that, "he insists on continuing to muddy and tangent, as always," or throw in the odd comment about the other guy's, "ignorance." I don't think you're ignernt, Bob. I don't demand that you see things the way I do. I simply think you're wrong.

2. The reason to attack the various notions about the, "knightly," Lee (defined as such because of his supposed honor) and, "the Stainless banner," is that they do indeed contribute to a quasi-religious worship of Southern images, and through them to a set of hallucinations about Southern history and current events. Most patently, the notion that Lee revolted because he had a, "higher loyalty," (see Shaara, "The Killer Angels," and elsewhere) to his home State is frequently invoked to justify the "State's Rights," claim that we see so often in the history of the Klan, or Jim Crow, of lynchings, and of segregation.

3. As mentioned, some of us are quite well aware of Ben Butler and the Northern war party, and have been for decades. However, the obvious fact the other side contained murdering racist bastards like George Armstrong Custer does not legitimate supporting a side that contained murdering racist bastards like Nathan Bedford Forrest, and that centrally--centrally--organized itself around racist doctrines, the defense of the institution of slavery, and the extension of that institution westward.

4. Oh. And if my aunt had...never mind. If Lee had won at Gettysburg, the War might've been different--if, of course, Grant hadn't at the same time taken Vicksburg and chopped a big chunk off the South. But Lee LOST--that's what actually happened--and he lost because he and his got outgeneraled, starting on the first day by Buford. He lost because the Northern troops proved tougher than the South in several key places. And he lost because Meade (unlike morons like Dan Sickles) had the sense to stay right where he was. And he lost because, having utterly failed to learn a damn thing from Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg, he gave Pickett 15,000 men and marched them straight up a hill, in the open. Apparently on the theory that Southern troops were always beetter. Now there's brilliant generalship. Oh, and incidentally--after Gettysburg, the South pretty much got its tail kicked at every opportunity.

5. Many of us think that a democratic army is inevitably going to be better than armies of slaveowners, or fascists. And we dislike the myth of Lee and Southern superiority for the same reasons we dislike the fantasy that Hitler's army was superior. And if you read the guys who make one claim, they pretty much always end up making the other.

6. Of course the chiclet should wear her goofy dress. And everybody black should show up dressed as Kleagles, and all the other sensible kids should show up dressed as Lincoln and/or John Brown. Still want to know her affiliations---and bet a shiny nickel that they're pretty ugly.

 

[kenpo tiger]

"Of course the chiclet should wear her goofy dress. And everybody black should show up dressed as Kleagles, and all the other sensible kids should show up dressed as Lincoln and/or John Brown. Still want to know her affiliations---and bet a shiny nickel that they're pretty ugly."

Robert,
Words fail me right now. How is it that you manage, however circuitously (according to some), to come back 'round to the real issue? Tisn't the dress, indeed, but the motivation behind all that preparation and why the dress needed/had to be worn to the prom.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Mr. Hubbard asked that we look at the declaration South Carolina made on the occasion of its seceding from the Union.

For those who believe that the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery and that the doctrine of State's Rights had no application to the maintenance of racism, here is an excerpt from that declaration. Please note that a) employed is the link Mr. Hibbard cited; b) this is the section in which Carolina is explaining its reason for seceding. The commentary in brackets is this writer's.


"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." "

{i.e., Carolina is complaining that a) the Union is violating that part of the Constitution which legitimated slavery, and that b) the Dred Scott decision isn't being honored. The State is claiming its legal right to enforce perpetual slavery, and to track down escaped slaves wherever they may be.}

"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."

{Carolina is arguing that slavery is essential to its interpretation of the Constitution, and integral to the construction of most States in the Union.}

"The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States."

{Again, their point is that the Constitution legitimates pursuing escaped slaves, and asserts that--for example--Abolitionists who harbor slaves are criminals.}

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

{The State is arguing that the growing anti-slavery movement in the North has been aided and abetted by the courts and governments of the northern States, and claiming that this dissolves the Constitution.}

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

{As mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the idea is that such phrases as, "ourselves and our posterity," apply only to whites, as do the other provisions of the Constitution. Slaves are considered something other than full human beings, since they are excluded from such considerations as obtaining, "justice--" or more precisely, slavery is considered to be the natural and just condition of the slave. In denying this and claiming that black people are fully human entitled to the same rights as anyone, the suggestion goes, the North has attacked the natural and theological underpinnings of the Constitution.}

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

{Here, the doctrine of State's Rights guaranteed by the Constitution is asserted. Noteworthily, such Rights are specifically linked to the right to own slaves within states. Indeed, no other considerations are even mentioned.}

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

{The North has already destroyed the Union, because it has a) claimed the right to define slaves as something other than property; b) denied the legitimacy of the institution of slavery; c) claimed that slavery is in fact an evil; d) encouraged the Abolitionist movement; e) helped slaves escape; f) encouraged Southern slaves towards freedom.}

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

{The Northern attacks upon slavery have grown worse; the current President--Lincoln--claims that a) the country cannot continue, "half slave, half free," and b) the public increasingly believes that slavery must be abolished. Note: England had abolished slavery in 1832.}

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

{The partisan politicians of the North have let too many of what we would now call, "minorities," including immigrant Irish and slaves, vote. None of these, "by the supreme law of the land"--the Constitution, and God--should ever be permitted to vote, being, "incapable of becoming citizens."}

Somehow, one believes them: the complaint is that slavery is under attack, and must be defended as an institution that is fundamental to a) the Constitution; b) the identity of the slave-owning States; c) the legitimacy of American democracy.

One can see their point. The Constitution--to our national shame--did indeed legitimate slavery. However--and here's what's dumb about the, "strict constructionist," argument--the Constitution, and the country, evolved.

It's often pointed out that the trend of law in this country has been to extend democracy and its benefits to a wider and wider population. (Indeeed, that's one of the legitimations Bush & Co. rely upon for our current little adventures--it is the mission of the United States to extend liberty worldwide.) Against that, the 1860 Declaration by South Carolina stands as a document that will live in, "the annals of infamy."

 

[ghostdog2]

Much of the dispute between two eloquent and sincere contributors can, imho, be attrbuted to their confusing motive with cause.

The cause of the Civil War was the insistence of the Northern states that the Union was a compulsory joining of the states and their armed enforcement of that position once secession had occurred. Perhaps naively, the Southern states wished, at least publicly, that they "..be allowed to depart in peace" as one Southern statesman put it. Indeed, many, if not all the arguments used to justify the actions taken by the 13 colonies could be used to justify secession: political unions were voluntary and could/should be dissolved when they no longer met the needs of the governed, etc.
It is also fair to say that the slave holding states could claim that the Northern states had switched decks on them. The Constitution clearly recognized and protected the slave trade. The Slave states agreed to the new Constitution only on those terms and otherwise could and would have gone their own way. As recently as 1790 the slave states had been assured that Congress would not and could not disturb their "property" rights.
And then....
As a last point of perspective, the American Rev. was literally only a generation away for some. Lee's father was Light Horse Harry Lee, Rev. hero and one of Washington's favorites. Simply put, things that now seem inevitable or even pre-ordained were very much in flux.
The motive for the Civil War was slavery. It was their fear of and resistance to the emancipation movement in the North that motivated the South to leave the Union. In their defense, many were like Lee and believed slavery evil and wished to see it end. They saw themselves forced to war to defend their homes. Winfield Scott offered the command of all Union forces to Lee, whom he considered the finest field commander in the Army. Lee declined, resigned his commission and returned to Va. "...hoping never to draw my sword again."
And then......
p.s. The Army of Northern Virginia was never defeated, sir. She was overcome by History.
As for the dress: The courts protect speech not clothing. In some strictly defined areas, a flag or other object is recognized as "symbolic speech" and afforded protection accordingly. Is that what's happening here? Probably not. Unless Daisy Duke is going to demonstrate not dance.

 

[MA-Caver]

<snip> Winfield Scott offered the command of all Union forces to Lee, whom he considered the finest field commander in the Army. Lee declined, resigned his commission and returned to Va. "...hoping never to draw my sword again."
And then......
p.s. The Army of Northern Virginia was never defeated, sir. She was overcome by History.

Indeed, history shows that Lee, a graduate with honors from West Point is considered one of the most brilliant military minds in history. That under his command he (and other brilliant generals) were able to draw out the war for so long (with heavy losses to BOTH sides) against a superior and outnumbering force says something about his command abilities, which of course reflect his intelligence and character.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Casper the Canine:

Did you not read the declaration of the South Carolina legislature on the occasion of their secession?

Or hear one of the North's rejoinders:

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free
While God is marching on.


Dear Spelunker:

Lee may have been brilliant on a tactical level. But a really brilliant man--a genuinely moral man too, for that matter--would have seen through the times, and figured out how to honor both his oath to the Constitution and honor his home state. Lincoln transcended his times and his education--Lee did not. At the end, though, Lee may have done better--when he called for the Souith to genuinely surrender.

And even just as a general--he got beat to a standstill at Antietam, and whupped bad at Gettysburg. And if he had bad circumstances to contend with, so did Grant--and the failed shopkeeper beat the the Southern aristocrat, beat him bad.

Or did you want to defend Pickett's Charge as good generalship?

And to others:

In the end, the people who have mythologized Lee to justify all sorts of uglinesses are a lot more guilty than he ever was. Be proud of your people, by all means--your people included Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. But don't try to justify a war fought in large part for slavery.

 

[Tgace]

Cant figure how Pickett's Charge makes Lees legacy as a General a failure...dont know of any military leader with a 100% track record of victory.

 

[raedyn]

And I really really don't see what Lee's brilliance or lack thereof has to do with this girl's right (or lack thereof) to wear a dress that looks like the Confederate flag.

But maybe I'm just ignorant.

 

[Tgace]

Has this girl ever stated what the thinks this flag is supposed to represent? She said she was proud of "her background" I wonder what she thinks that is/means?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Has this girl ever stated what the thinks this flag is supposed to represent? She said she was proud of "her background" I wonder what she thinks that is/means?

And therein lies the rub.

While it's been an education reading the hysterical -- oops -- historical posts (and ripostes) about the Civil War between two people who really know their stuff (and I do mean that, you guys:asian: ), it is thread ganking at its finest.

Robert, you did say, not in so many words, that this little girl's motivation is what is really the key to this whole thing.

So, anyone come up with a companion article which gives us more information? I haven't yet.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Why is Lee's mythology and generalship connected to the prom dress?

Precisely because of what this girl was thinking. The concepts, "white pride," and, "the South," and, "the Stainless Banner," and, "Southern history," and "General Lee," are intertwined--and are the sort of thing that legitimates actions like wearing the dress.

It isn't a matter of historical reality at all. It's a matter of what people THINK about history--a matter of what they think happened, of what they think about the story behind events, of what they think about the causes and consequences of events like the Civil War.

One testimony to this is this: note that way that certain concepts and images appear, tangled up together, and are quickly connected to issues such as immigration, affirmative action, etc. An interpretation: the myth of a, "freedom-fighting," South that was beaten only the Northern masses and their superior industry is being used to anchor the notion of, "repressed white men," who were put down after the War, have been kept down by waves of carpetbaggers (intellectuals, liberals, etc., simply become new carpetbaggers in this mythology), and things have gotten so bad that now it is the, "white man," who is oppressed.

Two interesting notes: the role of Southern women tends to be curiously absent from these scenario, though not from associated myth-makings; see, for example, the survivalist genre in science fiction, including John Ringo's, "Gust Front." And second, the claim that the structure of racism has now simply been inverted so that, "white men," are on the bottom (a claim that actually isn't justified by reality, but only by myth) and, "the colored," (never quite said, but clearly meant) suggests stongly a sort of shame-faced recognition of the actual ideological structure that supported slavery.

In brief, that dress represents--as her supporters insisted and still insist--white pride, white Southern history, both grounded on a set of myths about the Civil War.

As, to be sure, are certain ideas about the North, Lincoln, democracy, the Union, etc. However, there's a difference: the set of myths about the North have historically been used to extend democracy, to open up the Constitution to everybody, to remind working-class people that they matter. And the set of myths about the South, historically speaking, have been used to legitimate the Klan, to justify not only the imposition of what boils down to apartheid but the rise of lynchings from 1890-1930, and to allow the doctrine of "State's Rights," to justify everything from attacks on integration to Bible-thumping by judges. Not incidentally, they also play a direct role in the contination of the dumbest myth about the South, that of a happy happyland in which aristocrats ruled over happy slaves and contented white folks.

So--to say something bad about General Lee, whose image is one of the linchpins in this set of myths, is to say something bad about the whole South.

Pickett's Charge wasn't a bad day or a little oopsie or a chance that needed to be taken and mighta worked. It was an arrogant, foolish attack launched by a general who had grossly overextended himself and his men, who found himself (like that fool Custer) hip deep in Indians, and who had absolutely failed to learn from previous battles what modern weapons and a good field of fire dominated by solid, entrenched troops would do to people dumb enough to walk slowly up a hill towards them, out in the open.

And another thing Lee failed to understand--the political character of modern war. Grant got it, early on--which is one of the reasons that the South woulda lost no matter what. They got whupped on the field, and they got out-thought.

But that prom dress' mythology denies all of that. It rests, in fact, upon one of the biggest lies of the last century: the lie that white men in America are oppressed as a group.

One has a hard time understanding what all that self-victimization is about--weird, because guys like Michael Savage make their careers and their wealth claiming to be victims, then turn around and claim that "they," are always whining about how much they've been picked on...

Personally, I think it's a way to avoid recognizing the extent to which working people in this country have gotten screwed. But if you're dead set into the fantasy that Capitalism Is the Greatest, that one's gonna be hard to face.