The Confederate license plate
I was surprised to read in Saturday’s Houston Chronicle that the state Department of Motor Vehicles needed one more vote to authorize a license plate celebrating the Confederacy and displaying the image of a Confederate battle flag. Is this a good idea? I am a history major, and I don’t believe in censoring history. I would not vote to prohibit the license plate.
At the same time, my personal belief is that secession and the Civil War were the worst things ever to happen to Texas (as Sam Houston predicted they would be) and we should be restrained about celebrating what in fact was a catastrophe, for Texas and for the nation. Texas is both a southern and a western state, and, of the two, I much prefer the western heritage to the southern. To me, the Confederate flag is inextricably linked with a dark part of our history, namely, segregation. That is my personal reaction; I do not ascribe that view to others. I had a history professor who liked to say, “Every man his own historian,” by which he meant that each must make our individual judgments about history.
The west, on the other hand, is a land of great vistas and rugged landscapes and endless distances that reinforce our state’s great myths of the wide open spaces and the great ranches and oil fields that sat atop land so unforgiving that only the devil could love it.
The discussion of the license plate inevitably leads to politics. Very little happens in state government without Rick Perry having a hand in it somewhere, and so the question that intrigues me is whether Perry has a position on the Confederate license plate. If the plate is authorized, I believe it will be a national story that will have an impact on Perry’s presidential ambitions. It will play well in the South, of course, and among all who chafe at the intrusions of the federal government, but I suspect it will be less well received in that part of the country that was on the winning side in the Civil War. My advice to Perry would be to forget about it.
Tagged: confederate license plate, dmv
Jurassic Park says:
Not liking the heat you took for hacking a staffer without cause? Time to throw out the Rebel Flag dogbone.
That last paragraph is some REALLY in depth analysis Paul, but as someone who probably remembers the Civil War, I suppose you’re more entitled to talk about it.
Reply »
Christopher Walker says:
The Confederacy wasn’t about segregation; it was about slavery. Not states’ rights, not Southern pride, not “common heritage”; it was slavery, pure and simple. It’s embarrassing and offensive that a license plate honoring that institution would even be taken under consideration.
We lost; everyone should get over it.
Reply »
Michael Landauer Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Christopher, that flag is more about segregation than the Civil War here in Texas. It never flew here during the war, and our troops never fought under it. But it was very popular during the fight to prevent desegregation, so the way Burka described it here is spot on, in my opinion. Either way, whether the flag represents protecting slavery (as it did in Virginia) or segregation (as it did all over years later), it should not be officially recognized by the state of Texas in any way.
Reply »
John Robert BEHRMAN Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Texas already has a white-star-on-blue-field vanity plate. That is, in fact, the “Bonnie Blue Flag” aka the Second National Flag of the Republic of Texas.
The usual tri-color is the pattern of most Texas battle flags. The second most common pattern is the white device-on-blue field.
The “Southern Cross” revival traces to the Nathan Bedfor Forrest legend promoted by the Second KKK.
Appropriation of CSA paraphanalia for contemporary politics
Reply »
paulburka says:
Don’t remember the Civil War very well, but I’ve been to Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Antietam.
Reply »
Jurassic Park says:
On a scale of 9 to 10, how bad did you envy General Burnside’s ability to grow facial hair that looks cool?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I liked Longstreet’s look better.
Reply »
Bill Baumbach says:
Still 150 years, some Texans still want to celebrate their failure, privileged gentry and slavery.
A more aptly Civil War remembrance license plate that portraying the Stars and Stripes, with the motto, “Preserving the Union.”
Reply »
South Texan says:
Bravo, Paul!
Well-written, great perspective!
Reply »
Here we go again! says:
Oh, for GOD’s sake, Rick! 1) load weapon 2) point at foot 3) PULL TRIGGER!
Jeeeeezzzzzzzzzz…………….
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Yeah, baby!
Reply »
anita says:
Please, please, please . . . create the Confederate license plate.
How tone deaf can the Perry people be?
Reply »
JP says:
Paul,
I doubt that Governor Perry had any knowledge of the Confederate plate issue until it made the press. The guilty party is me. The GLO is sponsoring 3 specialty plates, Adopt-A-Beach, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Buffalo Soldiers. I would like to point out that through todays lens on history, the Buffalo Soldier plate could be offensive as well to those who make a profession of being offended. Did not the Buffalo Soldiers participate in a genocidal war against an entire race of people,the American Plains Indians while simultaneously enslaving many of Indians on reservations? Should Texans of American Indian extraction object to the Buffalo Soldier plate proposal? I say no. Both Buffalo and Confererate soldiers served honorably. We should have no shame honoring their service.
As to the issue of slavery, I agree with Robert E. Lee when he wrote in 1857, “…slavery is a moral and political evil in any country.”
Jerry Patterson
Texas Land Commissioner
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Jerry –
Do you think that the Attorney General’s letter in the Severance case means that there will be beaches to adopt after all?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
The only reason to offer the plate, or to buy one, is to shove your nose in someones elses face. The confederate flag offends. Period. And the image it projects is one most Texans unfairly live under: redneck, backwards right wingers that make backroom deals, elect idiots and make hay destroying education. Hey, wait a sec….
Reply »
christopher walker Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Commissioner, I don’t think you can draw a valid parallel between the Buffalo Soldiers and the Confederacy.
The Buffalo Soldiers belonged to the United States armed forces that, yes, did participate in military campaigns that we today would unjustified (along with the rest of the US Army).
The Confederacy, however, was a movement, a cause, and a nation all built on one thing: the enslaving of blacks based on the notion that they were inferior. Even after the war, former Confederates terrorized blacks, worked in legislatures to deny them basic rights/privileges, and generally worked hard to make their lives miserable and ensure that they would remain second-class citizens. That was, and still is, the legacy of the Confederacy, and that’s what the Confederate flag has always stood for.
Why we want to make that a license plate is beyond me.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 8:59 am
JP, is the battle flag the symbol of the Sons of Confederate Veterans? Because if we want to honor the Confederacy — although Paul Burka and others have reasonable arguments against that — why not use the CSA flag, which has at least a patina of historical accuracy and was not used as a symbol by the Ku Klux Klan as the very emblem of segregation?
Reply »
anita says:
Commissioner,
Do you see how a Confederate license plate could be seen as offensive or troubling when authorized during the term of the first African American President of the United States, especially at a time leading up to the candidacy of our current Governor, who has spared no amount of vitriol when speaking of this President?
Reply »
Alan says:
I’d be curious to know how many of the plates get registered if it’s approved. It’s not unusual for people in the Deep South to be familiar with their family history concerning the “War of Yankee Aggression” and which of their relatives fought and where. But virtually no important battles took place in Texas and I can’t imagine too many people outside of places like Tyler-Longview would actually be interested in buying these things.
For what it’s worth, my ancestors fought for the Union. Where’s my license plate?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 9:29 am
I’ve always found that people out in West Texas are more racist. I think it’s because there are relatively few African-Americans out there whereas we in East Texas often count them as our friends and neighbors. I admit this may only be true of those of us who went to school with them post-integration. I remember noticing as a kid that my grandmother thought of them as being not quite human and how bizarre that was. It still is to this day.
And, yes, I am admitting that there is NO DOUBT that celebration of the Confederate States of America is, in and of itself, an act of racism.
Reply »
Steve Bresnen says:
Honoring soldiers who have served honorably is, well, honorable. I have come to wonder in recent years, how those who both celebrate the Confederacy and adhere to the Pledge of Allegiance can avoid cognitive disonance when saying: “…one nation under God, indivisible…”
Reply »
JP says:
Anita: I don’t think it makes any difference who is currently president, or who is running for president.
Alan: I’d be glad to sponsor a Sons of Union Veterans plate, but the SUV needs to come up with the $8k seed money and hope the plates sell well enough to recoup the investment.
Steve: I think the pledge was adopted long after the “Late Unpleasantness” of 1861-1865. Cognitive disonance is more likely to occur during the Texas pledge when its stated Texas is “indivisible”. Upon entering the Union in 1845 the annexation treaty reserved the right to divide into 5 states. If we did so, we’d have 8 more US Senators…
Reply »
Here we go again! Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Commissioner….thank you so very much for your reply. It’s really refreshing to see someone like yourself here.
I don’t think the issue over the Confederate battle flag is anything to do with honoring anyone. It’s unfortunate that over the past 100 years southerners have allowed the KKK and other racist groups to adopt it as their own symbol. For that reason alone it should NEVER, EVER, EVER appear on any license plate issued by our state.
Thanks again!
Reply »
JP says:
Paul,
The Supremes have been presented with a wonderful way to sever themselves from the Severance conundrum. Vacate their Nov 2010 ruling and everybody is home free.
On the Confederate plate I’m heartened by the lack of vitriol! Thanks to all.
JP
JP
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Thanks for the reply. Let’s all hope they avail themselves of the opportunity that has been given to them.
Reply »
Edie I. Mean says:
Commissioner – “Severance Conundrum,” why would the Supremes try to severe themselves? Is it a lousy album – or is Diana Ross insisting on all the credits & royalties?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Thank you Commissioner for stepping up.
Its too bad so many here who claim to be educated but appear to have no knowledge of the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” which Pres Jackson threatened to enforce almost entering us into a civil war in 1832. I hesitate to even bring up the issue of “States Rights” because every liberal KNOWS the Civil War was strictly about slavery.
Reply »
Jed Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
those seceding were more than happy to admit it was about slavery. you just gotta read the declaration of causes for texas (or several other states).
see here:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
in particular, paragraph 3.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Or you can read Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address as president of the Confederacy, which the State Board of Education included in the requirements for history. It’s boring enough to make a Reb into a Yankee.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 5th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Yeah, the states right to have slavery.
Reply »
No reason to deal says:
Uh, the states thought it was about slavery.
Reply »
Anon says:
All wars are about either money or religion or both. The Civil War is no exception. Slavery is one mechanism that every civilization that has ever existed has used at various times to get money. Western nations were the first in recorded history to voluntarily outlaw it, and ironically religion played a huge part in that. Texas and the South sided with money over moral principle—and paid a huge monetary price in the end thru devastated systems and infrastructure and lives.
Reply »
Anon says:
The North’s motivation for the Civil War was the same as the South’s motivation for seceding–money.
Reply »
Wayne says:
Com. Patterson, thank you got being a real person and stepping up. i think no other person in government served the people of texas more than you do. Thank you for serving.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez says:
@PB: You forgot two large components in your statement;
the South: Built on the backs of Black slaves
the West: Built on the backs of Mexicans, or at least the spaces that were stolen from the Mexicans and the Natives…
@JP:Typical racial insensitivity from an self-identified Anglo who fantasizes about the fragmentation of the people of color collective. How separated are you from reality that you don’t see the wrong of racism and white supremacy; honoring a Confederate who fought and lost for the right to own other humans? Honoring a Buffalo Soldier, initially racialized and segregated into the “Negro Calvary” by a White Army Officer Corp, and then ordered to kill Natives and being sent off to kill their own African bloodlines in the Caribbean? (Very typical of Texas Republicans…)
Reply »
bewildered Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Dear AJ,
Is a “self-identified Anglo” different from just an Anglo? What about an Anglo who is not self aware? Or an Anglo who has a conflicting sense of self… a transAnglo or maybe a Anglo-Saxon bi-racial kind of thing?
And is an Anglo who does not self ID, are they not as harmful or are they just unaware of their hateful ways?
Seriously, what they hell is the point of making such a bizarre dig at JP? Why don’t you just call him honky?
BW
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Seriously,
about “self-identified”: that just respects someone ethnic identity. As for answering to your “not self aware” non-sense; it won’t be. I believe you made your point with using language that included “bi-racial kind of thing” as one of an individual who is unable to understand the complex thinking required when dealing with concepts of race. (Oh and Anglo isn’t race)…and I made my bizarre dig as I ‘ll call out racism/discrimination when I see it; no matter how subtle.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Re Adrian Juarez — I thought about including South Texas. I couldn’t make it work. South Texas was very sparsely settled at the time of the Civil War, although the last battle of the war was fought there. I’m not saying that Mexicans were not discriminated against. Of course they were. Many of them had their land taken from them, including the Balli clan. Some were shot down in cold blood. But it’s different from the black experience.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Agreed; Black and Brown experiences in the US are two completely different trajectories.
Reply »
Michael says:
As a descendant of the first Spanish families in Texas, I could say the Texas flag is a symbol of oppression. My family lost almost 400,000 acres of a Spanish land grant after Texas became independent and then a state. The new government passed laws and took the land. The Native Americans from whom my ancestors took the land could also claim that various symbols and flags are reminders of the horrors their ancestors endured.
So where do we stop? When do we stop saying that any given part of the history of the United States offends someone? One of my ancestors was the highest ranking Hispanic in the Confederate Army. I’m proud of his service, and I’m a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The Confederate battle flag isn’t a symbol of racism, no more than the Texas flag or U.S. flags are. It was a flag carried into battle by men who were willing to lay down their lives to prevent the Federal government from denying states their rights.
Slavery was an evil whose effects still rumble through our country. It was wrong, but free blacks also owned slaves, and blacks in Africa sold each other to the slave traders. White Southerners weren’t the only guilty ones to participate in that horrible history.
If the Southern battle flag offends you, then let’s remove all emblems of oppression. The U.S. Army carried the country’s flag into battles against the Native Americans in their wars to exterminate them. It was genocide, pure and simple. You want to exile the Southern battle flag because you think it is the embodiment of all that is evil about the Old South? Fine. Then retire the U.S. flag, too. I’m sure many Native Americans and all the descendants of the Spanish families who lost their lands to the Americans would be happy to see it go.
I love both flags, by the way.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 27th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
I agree with Michael!!! Well said……..thank you
Reply »
hooah! Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 8:41 am
I can tell you one thing….the flag used by the Klan and other racists will NEVER fly over any property that I own.
It’s not a question of “offense”…it’s a question of being identified as a 100% racist.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
@Michael:
Symbols evolve and at this point in time; the Confederate is used to represent racist ideology. Also, weak justifications such as free blacks owing slaves and using these isolated incidents to infer and equalize to macro/societal level wrongs only weakens your point.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Adrian, the West was not built on the backs of Mexicans.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Sure it was; it continues today with cheap labor from Latin America.
Reply »
Terry's Texas Rangers says:
Michael,
Well said. This is a great and beautiful country, but there are many scars upon her skin, the marks left from daggers of soldiers and warriors on either side. No one race built the South, or the West, or the North. The God’s smile on the just and the unjust alike, and people of all races have oppressed and have been oppressed.
Reply »
allrighty Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I’m a white guy.
I understand Patterson’s argument, as well as others who have chimed in. But I need to recognize that it’s not necessarily how I feel about the flag that matters — it really matters what those who have been oppressed feel about it. I never fully understand it, until I’m in their shoes. If it gives discomfort to those who have not always had the ability to enjoy all the fruits of our society, I’ll stand against it. I think it would be appropraite to err on the side of being respectful to those that we have historically oppressed — and not compartmentalize the issue to reach a desired outcome.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Great post! I do the same when I am in New Mexico. For example, people of my racial and cultural lineage pacified the natives, the Pueblos. I cont. to enjoy the “fruits” of that oppression as many of my blood line live free and have the opportunity to reach our maximum potential in New Mexico as we are not limited to live on reservations or land that one was forced to live on. I accept responsibility for what people of my lineage committed, not only in the spirit of integrity but also out of justice.
Reply »
patriotone says:
The Civil War was about slavery. Read the Articles of Texas Secession. It is very clear. The Confederate Battle flag has been co-opted by the KKK and other virulent racists. If people cared so much about the flag they should have protected it from these people It is a symbol of hatred and racism. Texas should not adopt it for any purpose whatever. It is hateful, hurtful and offensive. It cannot be equated with the service of Buffalo Soldiers. That is silly sophistry.
Reply »
hooah! Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 8:42 am
Thank you…well said!
Reply »
Jed says:
i’ll start this comment by noting that i have never once in my life made a nazi comparison. i think they are almost always hyperbolic and reductionist.
that said, the logic above could just as easily be used to justify flying the swastika (or putting it on a license plate, say, in berlin).
yes, the human race is steeped in blood. there are no (or very, very few) innocents.
but when something is wrong, and we all – every one of us – agree in hindsight that it is wrong, it simply makes sense to refrain from celebrating it.
right? what am i missing?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I, too, aplaud Commissioner Patterson. In years past, I have written him personal letters taking issue with some of his postions. He has always taken the time to personally respond. No canned, generic responses from him like Rep. Barton, Cornyn and Hutchison send back.
I think he would make a fantastic governor. To the point, succint responses supporting his position on any matter, and ears that don’t slam shut when others are expressing an opposing opinion.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
John, Patterson will NEVER be governor ever and he’s 64 years old and ain’t getting younger to boot.
He’s running for Lieutenant Governor in 2014, and I don’t have him making it that far in the crowded GOP primary, especially IF Abbott jumps in and it all depends on the Dew’s political future as well.
Reply »
Blue says:
Paul, this isn’t an issue of “censoring history” and it isn’t a vote to “prohibit” something. The issue is whether it is a good idea, today, in 2011, to “honor” Confederate veterans.
I see no good reason to add any additional remembrances–and I say that as someone whose family was from New Orleans from the time it was founded and who has many relatives who fought in the Civil War. There are sufficient memorials to those long dead–and the connections of blood by this time are incredibly tenuous.
Let the Civil War lapse into history and let’s stop picking at a scab that should have healed long ago.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
My great grandfather was a member, in order, of the 2nd Virginia Cavalry (K-Company), Phelam’s Battery, 1st Stuart Horse Artillery and, finally, 1st Maryland Regiment of Cavalry, CSA..AND HE WAS ON THE WRONG SIDE. If you want to know what the Civil War was about, read the “explanations” of why they seceded printed by 7 of the confederate states to defend their actions…EACH AND EVERY ONE has one common element prominently presented—the defense of SLAVERY. They knew what they were fighting for and they said it. Texas’ explanation is about the bluntest of them all…It doesn’t try to hide behind “state rights” but comes right out in the first paragraph and says it—we want to keep owning Black people and they may not let us.
Reply »
rw says:
It’s good to know that the choice of our next President is dependent of whether or not Texas allows the confederate flag on our license plates. I guess all of that talk about the economy, unemployment, debt limits, Medicare, etc pales by comparison.
Reply »
WURSPH says:
General Grant probably had the best comment about those who served in the Confederate forces. His comment was that never had any army fought more valiantly FOR THE WORST POSSIBLE CAUSE.
Reply »
Rusty Nail says:
What’s next, license plates to raise money for the John Birch Society?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
The John Birch Society scare you socialists?
Reply »
hooah! Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Scare? No. Amuse? Yes.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Does a socialist scare the John Birch Society?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
from the commissioner’s post “I doubt that Governor Perry had any knowledge of the Confederate plate issue until it made the press. The guilty party is me. The GLO is sponsoring 3 specialty plates, Adopt-A-Beach, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Buffalo Soldiers.”
1. Commissioner Patterson said it was his idea not the Guv’s
2. The plate is Sons of Confederate Soldiers not “confederate soldiers.”
I know you liberals have your panties in a wad over this but try doing a little reading for a change before you jump to the wrong conclusions.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Irony is truely dead.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“Irony is truely dead.”
We know only liberals are smart. How? because they tell us.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Unsurprisingly, you don’t understand what the word “irony” means.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
actually I do, but you missed the point of my post. I’ll spell it out for you. READ PATTERSON’s POST FOOL!
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Reading comprehension. You should give it a try sometime.
Here we go again! Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
So much for the lack of vitriol, Commissioner Patterson. The loons are out today.
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Really?? Where? Apparently understanding what words actually mean is extremely difficult for you people. Here’s a clue, get a dictionary. At least that explains the reading comprehension issues you all seem to have.
Reply »
OMG says:
Commissioner Patterson,
I am sure there are citizens and residents of this state who are decendants of soliders who served in the Mexican Army and who fought against Texas in the Texas Revolution. They were on the “wrong side,” but I’m sure they fought valiantly. How about a license plate with the Mexican flag for their decendants? I dare say, you might have more sales!
Really…is there not a way to honor the service of Confederate soldiers that doesn’t involve using a symbol that is offensive to many and associated with hate? Maybe use the colors of the confederate uniform or something?
Reply »
anonymous from FTW says:
Maybe it’s just me but whenever I see the Confederate Battle Flag displayed the term “ignorant redneck” comes to mind. And this is coming from a great-great-grandson of a Confederate Veteran and a 5th generation West Texan. That symbol was hijacked a long time ago by backwards racists and there is no way to rehabilitate it. Just like the swastika had some meaning before the Nazis appropriated it but will forever be associated with Nazis. Once the Klan and the other segregationists took the battle flag and made it theirs, there is no way to change the public perception of that symbol. If they would just use the official CSA flag. I guess I would be okay with it. I have no problem with regional pride just that particular symbol.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Maybe it’s because there’s an African American in the White House which explains why you see Confederate state license plates.
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! says:
Hmmm. Selective outrage. The “Western” tradition and heritage of this state (and others) incorporates genocide and forced removal of native Indian tribes. I fail to see how that is any less disgraceful than plantation slavery. The romance of the Western often fails to remember the cost to indigenous peoples of the white man’s glorious “progress.”
Reply »
Whoa Nellie! says:
“why not use the CSA flag, which has at least a patina of historical accuracy and was not used as a symbol by the Ku Klux Klan as the very emblem of segregation?”
The KKK also marches under the stars and stripes, yet the US national flag is not routinely condemned as “co-opted” as is the Confederate battle flag. US soldiers under the stars and stripes perpetrated numerous massacres of American Indians. It still amazes me that Indian tribes don’t raise more objections to the US flag being honored at their pow-wows and other civic events. Strange, selective historical memory on display everywhere.
Reply »
angledge says:
My great-great-grandfather fought in the First Missouri Cavalry & was captured in the Battle of Vicksburg. But when I see a Confederate flag, I don’t think of him. I think of white hoods, lynchings, & the one time I was physically threatened for being a lesbian (my assailant traced the letter “K” on my chest three times before letting me go).
I agree with the poster at 10:06 AM – whatever the Confederate symbol used to stand for, it has been deeply (perhaps permanently) tainted by its association with white supremacists & defenders of segregation. I don’t think it should be put on Texas license plates.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Thanks democrats for once again reminding us how racist the democrat party is.
It was a disgrace in 2008 watching the democrats engaged in a primary election, as the half white Obama out racismed the Clintons.
Reply »
Texun Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
It’s time for bed check.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I think it’s time for mommy to check your meds.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Hilarious watching Obama’s team paint Pres Clinton as a racist, and there was nothing Hillary could except take it.
Gee I wonder if the dems will play the race card in 2012?
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
BREAKING NEWS, if anyone didn’t notice: former Texas Secretary of State Roger Williams (R) has dropped out of the US Senate race for KBH’s Senate seat in 2012, and focusing running for the newly-created TX 33rd district against former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams (R), who dropped out of the Senate race recently.
Does this give Dewhurst a clearer path to the GOP nomination for KBH’s Senate seat ?
Reply »
Vernon says:
The problem is that the confederate flag symbolizes different things to different people.
Unfortunately, some of the ideas that it represents are very bad and they can’t be separated from that symbol. They are all forever married to it for better or worse.
While it may represent Southern regional pride, it also represents slavery.
While it may represent states rights, it also represents anti-Unionism.
It reminds of the saying, “If you mix five pounds of ice cream with five pounds of $hit, you ten pounds of $hit.”
I think that’s what we have here: some reasonable good mixed with a lot of bad.
Knowing everything that the confederate flag represents, do you really want to eat big heaping spoonfuls from that ten pound pile?
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Edit: It reminds me of the saying, “If you mix five pounds of ice cream with five pounds of $hit, you get ten pounds of $hit.”
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Staples has his 2014 campaign website up and running:
http://www.toddstaples.com/
He’s gunning for the Lieutenant Governor’s office very early-even though he’s in his 2nd term as Agriculture Commish.
Reply »
Ray James says:
Have enjoyed some of your more thoughtful comments, but feel I should step in to supplement Commissioner Patterson’s remarks…
Slavery is not an issue, here. I submit:
1) Secession was about slavery (the economics of slavery, not the human rights aspects).
2) The War was fought because Lincoln didn’t want the South to secede (largely because of the economics of secession, not because of any aspect of slavery and certainly not because of the human rights aspect of slavery. (The South would have preferred to leave peacefully; Lincoln almost singlehandedly prosecuted the War to preserve the Union, himself saying that was the only reason.)
3) Almost all the men who fought for the Union fought to preserve the Union and not because of any aspect of slavery–read their letters– (excepting a very few abolutionists who possibly were fighting for that principle).
4) The men who served the Confederacy fought to defend their homes and states and to preserve their declared independence, and almost in all cases not to preserve slavery–read their letters.
5) The ending of slavery became a military objective by Lincoln only late in the War, in his attempt to consolidate political power. This led to the eventual ending of slavery.
6) Those who would attempt to justify Lincoln’s war (which was not in any way constitutional), want to take the high moral ground attributing to him the more honorable goal of ending slavery, but any cursory reading of history will convince an open-minded reader that this was not the case. Lincoln was clearly a white supremecist,even by the standards of the day (when practically everyone was a white supremecist), and especially wwhen compared to some Southern leaders (including R. E. Lee and T. J. Jackson).
We choose to honor the men who fought for the South, because they earned that honor with their sacrifice. We choose to use the battle flag because it represents the soldiers and was designed by soldiers for the battlefield (it was later adopted into the cantons of the 2nd and 3rd national flags, so it alsao represents the nation). We are the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” and we honor the Veterans (we are not the Sons of the Confederacy–if we were, we might have adopted one of the national flags which represenet the nation, and its politics).
We are not racists (the SCV has passed many resolutions condeming racism). Those who assume we are should reflect on the definition of prejudice, which is assuming something negative (like racism) about someone based on some superficial symbol (like the logo of the SCV, which incorporates the battleflag). Please don’t assume we are racists because of this symbol, which has been our logo since 1896. I certainly wish that we had been more effective at preventing the use of the battleflag by hate groups (who incidentally used just as much or more the US and Christian flags), but the fact that this was done by others does not prevent us from continuing to use our logo to honor our ancestors.
We believe we have a right, under the first amendment, to have such a license plate. So far as my limited study of the Constitution goes, I can’t find the word “controversial” anywhere in the first amendment.
We appreciate Commissioner Patterson’s strong and sincere support of our right to celebrate our heritage and honor the Confederate Veterans with a specialty license plate. We intend to use part of the proceeds from the plate to support Land Office efforts to preserve important historical documents and part to place monuments to Texans who fought for the South.
Nearly every other Southern state has such a specialty license plate. It shouldn’t be a problem for Texas to approve one.
Sincerely,
Ray James
Past Commander
Texas Division
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
@Ray James:
I refer you to the concepts of Republic and Democracy. Regardless of who fought where and for whom, the point is the ruling classes, in the case of the Confederate insurgency, slave proprietors, convinced the economically subordinate populace to take up arms against the Yankee north. So fighting for the cause of the insurgency by default, is fighting for the (economic) right for the southern ruling class to own slaves. oh, and I too, couldn’t find the word controversial in the 1st Amendment but I did find in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments that the “blessings of Liberty” are expanded to include protection from the ideals and symbols espoused in “condition of servitude.”
Reply »
Lt. Dan says:
If they would use the CSA First National Flag, the original “Stars and Bars,” it would not be an issue because so many people would not know what it is.
Reply »
Julie says:
This is one of those issues where perception is more important than whatever argument is offered to justify Texas license plates with the Confederate flag.
While the Sons of Confederate Veterans say they simply want to preserve “the history and legacy of these heroes (Confederate soldiers),” a Confederate license plate would leave an impression with many people — both inside and outside of Texas — that the state is full of racists.
Texas doesn’t need to wrap itself in that type of image.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
To late…thank Governor Perry and his “states right” BS.
Reply »
Harry says:
The Senate this evening has for the first time in years told the House to like it or lump it on the budget by finishing its business, sending the bills over there and leaving and HERE all we have is LICENSE PLATES?
The House leadership screwed SB1 so badly that it LOST on the first vote and all we have here is LICENSE PLATES?
The House finds Sanctuary Cities all but dead and TSA needing 120 votes and all we have here is LICENSE PLATES?
Turn out the lights JBB. Elvis has left this building.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
one has to be very shallow to look at another human and only see/judge them by skin color, gender, and sexual preference yet democrats do it every day.
Character/morals never even enters the thought process and in many cases the more corrupt an individual is the more he’s admired. The very thought of a republican woman being intelligent is a threat to most democrats.
Unfortunately democrats will make race an issue in 2012 because they have no other way to defend the One.
If you can only veiw the world through that perspective then you know the civil war was about slavery. If you’re really shallow you do it because you were told to view that way by another democrat.
Reply »
patriotone says:
The Civil War was about slavery. I know this because I can read.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“I know this because I can read.”
then read this from your link “By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.”
“Exactions” = tarriffs.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Southern rights of exactions=The desire to prevent the encroachment in the size of plantations that are tended by slaves.*Hint: Dig beneath the literal.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
OIC exaction = encroachments. Then wouldn’t exactions and encroachments be redundant?
I’ll take it as it was written exactions=tariffs and encroachments=encroachments on States rights.
But I’m not a wordsmithing democrat..ie
Marriage is between a man and a woman unless you’re a wordsmithing democrat.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
July 3rd, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Wordsmiths come in all political persuasions; however, what sets us Wordsmiths apart is that we’re obviously more educated and don’t resort to inflammatory statements to get a reaction.
kirk holden says:
I want a Mexican flag on my low rider and a French flag on my Peugeot.
Reply »
Cholula says:
Can’t wait for some cracker to drive his confederate flag bearing car in my barrio.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I was down in your barrio saw you chillin outside drinking schlitz with your homies with a window unit plugged in on the table blowing some breeze.
Reply »
Adrian Juarez Reply:
July 3rd, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Instead of making yourself look like a fool; just admit you hate Latin Americans. (Let em remind you, the demographics of Texas are changing, so you may want to leave….)
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
@Adrian
remember the Alamo!
Reply »
Steve says:
From the DMV’s July board meeting yesterday….
Chairman Vandergriff said a tie is a failure to pass (under Robert’s Rules of Order) but he would await a full 9-member board to reconsider the plate in the fall.
Reply »
dieta dukan says:
Yo aun necesito leer mas sobre todo esto para poder elegir la opcion mas sensata para mi. Ahora busco informacion sobre lo que se denomina de la “dieta dominguera”.
Reply »
TexasReb says:
Now ain’t this an interesting link!? Especially recommended for those who condemn any symbols of our Southern heritage yet…try desperately (and patheticially) to convince others (and themselves too, perhaps…?)that the former are somehow “different” other icons of American history that might ALSO be viewed as “offensive” to some groups of Americans.
Reply »
TexasReb says:
Ooops, sorry! I forgot to include the link mentioned above; about how some Native American groups object to a speciality plate honoring the Buffalo Soldiers! Here it is:
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2011/11/indian-group-objects-buffalo-soldier-specialty-license-plate-forced-relive-american-holocaust.html
Reply »
TexasReb says:
Oh lord, I realize this thread is quite old…but there are some things that still need replying to. Not to the poster, but for those who might actually have such a limited knowledge of Texas/Southern history as does the poster below:
********************************
Michael Landauer Reply:
June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Christopher, that flag is more about segregation than the Civil War here in Texas. It never flew here during the war, and our troops never fought under it. But it was very popular during the fight to prevent desegregation, so the way Burka described it here is spot on, in my opinion. Either way, whether the flag represents protecting slavery (as it did in Virginia) or segregation (as it did all over years later), it should not be officially recognized by the state of Texas in any way.
********************************
This has got to be one of the most historically ignorant posts on a thread full of them, anyway! In fact, it it even difficult to know where to begin pointing them out. BUT…I will try! LOL
1. Uhhh, for one, concerning where the Confederate Battle Flag (not to be confused with the Stars and Bars, which was the First National Flag)flew in Texas. Actually, it was a battle flag, and never official adopted by the CSA thus never “flew over” ANY state. On the other hand? it “flew” over many Texas units in Confederate service in the field. E
2. Related to the above, there are many “Battle Flags”. The first one was designed early on and had a square configuration (the first “Southern Cross). Later, many designs sprang from the original pattern (Texas units often had an enlarged center star). The rectangular one most commonly thought of as the “Confederate/Rebel Flag” today was that used by CSA Navy and the Army of Tennesse (in which many Texas regiments were part of).
3. Although the issue has been voted upon (for now…although that will NOT be the final word), the State of Texas would not be “endorsing” or “recognizing” the “Confederate Flag” in an official way by approving specialty/vanity for the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization (which — BTW — includes members of ALL races, ethnic, and religions). Rather, just allowing this group — like any other — the right to place their (our) logo — which incorporates a square Battle Flag into the larger design. People are free to buy it (paying an extra fee) or reject it. This has nothing to do with the state itself making a statement on history.
4. ANY OTHER GROUP is free to apply for the same speciality tags. Several in this thread (in a lame attempt to be ironic/sarcastic) have asked about groups honoring their Mexican ancestry or whatever if they should have the same right? The answer is YES! Why not? If the Black Panthers want their own tags then why not? So long as ANY group meets the requirements, then go for it!
Anyway, I could go…but enough for now. Just to wind it up, I have no problem at all with principled objections and opinions. Indeed I respect it. But self-righteous breastbeating, and historical ignorance and/or self-denial, do not fit the criteria.
Reply »