<p>^ I wouldn’t want to send my kids (talking about the very distant future) to a place where censorship rules the day. Personally, I find nothing attractive about the confederate battle flag, but consider that there are still people around that can easily trace their roots back to soldiers who died in that conflict, protecting what they considered their homeland. Remember that the Confederacy didn’t invade the Union trying to force every northern state into submission, it was the other way around (not that I’m taking the Confederate side but the point stands)</p>
<p>My concern is W&L condoning the PUBLIC display of the confederate flag. I believe censorship would be prohibiting a student from privately displaying the flag in his/her dorm room. For some, the flag is simply a symbol of southern pride but for many others it is more than that. FWIW, As an AfAm when I see the confederate flag I immediately think kkk thus an institution which allows the public display of this flag would not be one I would feel comfortable having my child attend.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, what exactly are you referring to then? Nobody at W&L walks around waving a confederate flag. The only places the flags are located are in people’s residences (dorm rooms, some fraternity houses, etc) and also in Lee Chapel (in the sanctuary by the statue of General Lee, that one is a bit obvious). The University doesn’t actively display the flag anywhere nor are students planting it in the quad or on the lawn.</p>
<p>BTW, the KKK has used the American flag to support their cause as much as they have the Confederate Battle Flag. They have also used religion in an attempt to advance their cause. That doesn’t make any of those things offensive, does it?</p>
<p>The University does not display it anyway, does it? I don’t recall ever having seen one in our five visits to campus (maybe in Lee Chapel Museum with Lee’s grave?). Obviously, we did not visit individual dorm rooms, but the only flag my son saw displayed there more than a few times was the Texas flag! So that’s why he’s bringing his Md flag . . . .</p>
<p>Btw - We see far more public displays of the Confederate flag in Gettysburg, PA!</p>
<p>I apologize . I went back and re-read some of the earlier posts in this thread and indeed the flags were seen displayed in individual dorm rooms and not publicly as I stated in my earlier posts.</p>
<p>I grew up in the Northeast in an area where ethnic pride as well as pride in one’s heritage still is very prevalent. People flew and still fly Irish, Italian, German, Israeli flags…, the yellow street lines are repainted the colors of Italy during saints’ festivals, etc. Instead of Civil War reenactments there are ones for the Revolutionary War.</p>
<p>BTW, if you think the South is the only area that has prejudice, take a look at cities in the northeast ie Boston. The Brahmins were terrible to the Irish immigrants that arrived in the 19th century. And don’t forget that this city first underwent forced integration as late as the early 1970s whereas many southern states confronted this issue much earlier.</p>
<p>unwritten – tell your mom that a tour of southern universities, both big and small, will confirm that simple sundresses/skirts, with flat sandals for walking and standing, are the perfect comfortable attire for hot southern football games and tailgates. IMHO, it’s a very “cool” tradition!</p>
<p>Understandable given the length of this thread, TutuTaxi! </p>
<p>When do we get to end it?</p>
<p>
No, censorship would be the prohibition of the public display of the flag. If we are talking about freedom of speech/ideas/etc, the important thing is to be able to publicly display one’s flag - whether American, Texan, or other. Our “expression” freedoms (i.e. what makes a gov’t non-censorous; likewise, we can use the paradigm for private actors) are the freedom to PUBLICLY express views, to practice religion, to associate, etc.</p>
<hr>
<p>Re: sundresses. Oh yes, very nice when living in 95 degree weather. It’s a practicality issue. I’m not very feminine at all but really like sundresses for the heat and humidity.</p>
<p>Upon further thought though, it is a private university, and if it can ban things like swastikas and other racist speech in dormitories, why not the battle flag as well? I’m still not sure which side I’m on here.</p>
<p>While I don’t doubt that any private university has the right to ban Confederate flags, I’m too libertarian to really like that idea. The solution to “bad” speech is more speech. Deeply uncomfortable with any administrative body telling people what types of speech are socially acceptable, especially in an academic setting. Universities will defend people who say that the US engineered the 9/11 plot or that the people who died deserved to die; if they can stomach that, they can stomach a Southern flag, which can at least be debatably benign.</p>
<p>
It seems to me the recognition of private property rights would support a private institution’s decision to ban certain speech under Libertarian philosophy, much as an individual might ban profanity in his or her home. If Washington & Lee is private (I know nothing of the school, since it honors a Confederate), then shouldn’t Libertarianism support its right to ban the Confederate Flag? Free speech is not a right in private venues, yes?</p>
<p>I think W & L has the right to ban or publicly display the Confederate Flag on its own property, much as the KKK has the right to ban or display the flag on its property. And as long as the flag stays on its property and is supported by private funds, I literally have no concern about where or how it flies. But I do not think our local and state governments have the right to fly the Confederate Flag on public property because the flag is a scurrilous symbol representing the Southern struggle for the right to explicitly codify the oppression of blacks. To force blacks to literally pay for the display of the symbol of their own oppression is reprehensible.</p>
<p>Surely the KKK has flown the American Flag, just as many a scoundrel has thumped the Bible as they have performed dirty deeds. This makes neither the American Flag nor the Bible inherently filthy symbols in themselves. That is because these symbols did not come into being as a direct symbols oppression. The American Flag was not created to represent an effort explicitly hostile to freedom for blacks. Though blacks were enslaved, even as the Flag took shape, the Revolt that the Flag symbolized was clearly established on a principle hostile to slavery. The proof of this is seen in the response of blacks almost immediately after Jefferson published the philosophy under girding the revolt. Tens of thousands of blacks began to appeal to Jefferson’s principle in view of their own emancipation. Lincoln himself appealed to it as he argued for the end of slavery. He appealed to it as he freed the slaves of rebellious states. MLK came along to appeal to the exact same principle, over a century later, as he argued for increased civil rights for blacks. No such principle existed in the Southern Confederacy. When its battle flag was established, it was already fighting to enshrine in Constitutional Law an unequivocal decree legalizing slavery specifically against blacks. The Confederate Flag’s very purpose was to help the South in its struggle for the right to keep and maintain blacks as slave property.</p>
<p>And this is very clear in the texts left behind by the Southern leaders who had power to promote the Southern war effort. The Vice President of the Confederacy, for example, was very clear in how the United States differed philosophically from the Confederate States. He clearly described how the Founding Fathers established the United States on the foundational belief that all men were created equal. He stated this with astonishing clarity. He also stated that those [“ideas</a>, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”]( <a href=“http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76]“ideas”>http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76) He also claimed that the rupture between North and South (i.e. Secession), and the Civil War itself, was caused by the fact that a new country, the Confederacy, had come into being. And he was very clear that the foundation of this new nation was “exactly the opposite“ of the equality philosophy that under-girded the United States. To put a highlight on his meaning, he explicitly stated that the Confederacy had as its foundation, indeed as its very ‘Cornerstone,’ the philosophy that all men were NOT created equal, but that the natural status of blacks was oppression at the hands of whites. The Southern Confederacy stood as a nation that was philosophically hostile to the very heart and blood of America.</p>
<p>We ought not miss this. Jefferson was clear that because all men are innately equal, they have a right to fight against oppression against themselves. Because all men are equal, he argued, American colonists had a right to create the United States. And, for all his weaknesses, the great man was quite clear that he included blacks in his beliefs. The Confederacy, however, came along to argue that Jefferson was wrong, that all men are not equal, and that as a result, the foundation supporting the existence of the United States was faulty. The Confederacy aimed to cut America down at its philosophical root, and the Confederate Battle Flag was created to better help the South carry out this effort.</p>
<p>I understand how many people still have fantasies of a bucolic South, of sipping mint juleps under a shade tree as the slaves sing and dance in the fields. And I understand how the Confederate Flag might represent this history for them. But we ought to be very clear to understand that the Southern Confederacy was not American. It was established on clearly anti-American principles – principles that explicitly despised the idea that makes America what it is. Its symbols have no legitimate place of honor in any publicly supported American space. Let Washington and Lee support it on its own dime. No one has a moral right to force me or any other American, black or white, to support it in any way.</p>
<p>I’ve never read that Alexander Stevens speech, Drosselmeier. I skimmed it and am eager to give it a more thorough reading. Very disturbing sentiments. I was not aware that the inequality of the races was a “cornerstone” of the confederacy. The Ashbrrok Center website is a wealth of information. Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>It is my strong libertarian leaning that makes me agree with you. At this private college, the administration should have a right to ban confederate flags. Or line students up at 5 AM every day to sing the school fight song. Or REQUIRE that sundresses and ties be worn at football games. </p>
<p>If the confederate flag is flown or allowed to be displayed by students, the administration must be fine with that. Much like the greek culture on campus, these flags will turn many prospects off. Or be a real draw. Either way, it is an image and a philosophy that the school chooses to alllow.</p>
<p>I think Groucho Marx pretty much explains Greek life when he said, “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”</p>
<p>Sure, the name recognition with W&L is frustrating sometimes, but when someone is familiar with the school, the reaction is so great.</p>
<p>I head to Lexington in a week, yet before I have even started at W&L, I have met probably a half dozen or so alumni who have all been willing to talk to me about their experiences there with so much nostalgia of their college experiences and envy that I get to go W&L, since their time in Lexington has past. Through one alumni, I even have already had a job offer for next summer working in DC.</p>
<p>I’m so excited for W&L.</p>
<p>Of course a private institution can do whatever it wants; however, I tend to think that banning things that make people uncomfortable is not a good idea.</p>
<p>Frankly, I disagree - STRONGLY - with the idea that the Confederacy was all about oppression of blacks. The North, for those of you who would just love to pretend that it is a bastion of equality, had slaves for hundreds of years. Only when it was sufficiently industrialised - i.e. had no need for extraordinarily cheap labour - did it get rid of slavery. </p>
<p>I’ve noticed that racism in the North is quite an amazing thing. Everyone loves to pretend that they are all about equality, but heaven forbid that they actually let black people move into their nice suburbs. I grew up in a town that is 98% white but scorns the South as a backwards region. My hometown friends spaz every time I date someone who isn’t white and born in the USA (which is a fairly frequent thing - you think they would get over it).</p>
<p>
I think perhaps if we could somehow mutually nail down the meaning of private property, we might together see how banning things that make people uncomfortable can be a good idea. Because of how I view the concept “private property”, I think I have the right to deny expressions of racism in my home, for example. I dont think I have such a right in your home, or in the home of some other. For this reason I think it is perfectly acceptable for W&L or any other private institution to ban or promote ideology as it wishes. It seems to me the private aspect of its nature gives it the right to build whatever culture it thinks is best.</p>
<p>
I understand this, but I am not sure this gets us where we need to be. For example, we cannot legitimately support an argument favorable to the South, by arguing how pro-slavery the North was. Secondly, while I agree with you that Northern motives against slavery were not always or even usually honorable, the best Angels against slavery still largely existed in the North, beginning with folks like the Quakers (official anti-slavery declaration in 1696). Thirdly, and most importantly, the issue here does not really concern whether the North had slaves or were pro-slavery. It concerns which of the two regions deliberately fought for the preservation of the right to own slaves. That dubious honor belongs to the South alone, and it crafted the Confederate Flag to help achieve that goal. Surely the South had several other issues with the North during the mid-1800s. But [the</a> chief and immediate cause]( <a href=“http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War_American.html#p53]the”>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567354/Civil_War_American.html#p53) of the civil war was slavery. For this reason, I think there is no legitimate right to force the support of the Confederate Flag on public property. It is a patently anti-American symbol.</p>
<p>
Yeah. As a black guy, I certainly know that everything you say on this point is true. Please understand that my position here only concerns public support for symbols of oppression. I do not think Northerners are inherently less racist than Southerners.</p>
<p>seersucker. haha. better not bring those up to lexington past labor day. good post.</p>
<p>Ariesathena - I think your statement sums up the Civil War and its causes in a wonderfully succinct fashion. Of course it was all about economics; slavery being a byproduct of two quite different economic bases. </p>
<p>Thanks for boiling it down so well! I couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>I dont think Ariesathena argued that the cause of the Civil War was all about economics. She instead disagreed that the Confederacy was all about oppression of blacks, a point with which I heartily agree. The South had several grievances against the North, and historians have debated the precise nature of these grievances. But few legitimate historians agree that slavery was just a by product. It was at the very center of the conflict.</p>
<p>Slavery was undoubtedly THE IMMEDIATE FOMENTING CAUSE of the woeful American conflict. It was the great political factor around which the passions of the sections had long been gathered–the TALLEST PINE in the political forest around whose top THE FIERCEST LIGHTNINGS were to blaze and whose trunk was destined to be shivered in the earthquake shocks of war. (Confederate General John Brown Gordon on page 19 of his REMINISCENCES OF THE CIVIL WAR NEW YORK, CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS ATLANTA THE MARTIN & HOYT CO., 1904)
<a href=“http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm[/url]”>http://www.civilwarhome.com/gordoncauses.htm</a></p>
<p>Historians have long debated the causes of the Civil War. Many of them maintain that slavery was the root cause. In his second inaugural address in 1865, Lincoln said of slavery: “All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” But most historians agree that the war had a number of causes. They note, for example, that the northern and southern states had been drifting apart because of sectional differences, dissimilarities between the two areas in culture and economy. They also point to ongoing tensions between the federal government and the states over the extent of the federal government’s powers. They mention the disorder in the American political party system of the 1850’s. Yet slavery emerges as the most serious single cause. All explanations for the causes of the war have always involved or revolved around that issue.
<a href=“http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/civil_war[/url]”>http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/civil_war</a></p>
<p> abolition doctrine [is]. . . THE VERY DOCTRINE which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; found in Macphersons Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]</p>
<p>Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to PRESERVE THE BLESSINGS OF AFRICAN SLAVERY, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity." (George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana Feb 11, 1861, and presented to the Texas Secession Convention on Mar 9, 1861. Found in The Journal of the Secession Covention of Texas, pp 120-123., E.W. Winkler, ed.,)
(is also mentioneded here <a href=“http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=137[/url]”>http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=137</a> with references to several other documents pertaining to state secession declarations)</p>
<p>…it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere – in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the result of elections. It is not less manifest that the whole North is becoming ultra anti-slavery and the whole South ultra pro-slavery. Hence very small acts of deviation from the prevailing course of conduct of either section, being so conspicuous from their rarity, will attract immense animadversion. I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union." (Georgia politician and Confederate General Henry Benning in a letter to Howell Cobb, and found in The Toombs, Stephens, Cobb Correspondence, published by the American Historical Association. It can also be found in Allan Nevinss, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny, pages 240-241. Finally, you may read it here <a href=“http://www.gdg.org/Research/Causes/causes4.html[/url]”>http://www.gdg.org/Research/Causes/causes4.html</a>)</p>
<p>To pull all of this back to my point, it is clear to me, based upon the evidence left behind by leaders of the Southern Confederacy, that at least one of the chief reasons, if not the very topmost reason, the Confederacy came into existence, was the protection of slavery. Because its symbols were created to support this effort, those symbols can find no legitimate public support in America, the Land of the Free.</p>