The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles has rejected a proposal by the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag, according to The New York Times. Members of the governing board for the Texas DMV unanimously voted against the design after nearly two-hours of testimony from both sides of the issue. The Sons of Confederate Veterans had hoped to used funds from sales of the plates for memorial and history projects, but opponents said that the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of Texas' racist past. Shortly after rejecting the plate, the DMV governing body voted for a plate for the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, meanwhile, say that the group will likely sue to have the plates issued. The group has won similar lawsuits in North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 142 Comments
      RCBR
      • 3 Years Ago
      To be honest, the Confederate Flag does not seem very popular in the major metropolitan areas in Texas. I've seen more Confederate Flags in my travels to Atlanta and various parts of Florida than I have during my entire of being born-and-raised in Texas.
      Xedicon
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is a clear case of intention vs. consequence, truth vs. perception, etc. The confederate flag and associated imagery were never intended as a symbol of racism and intolerance, but the reality is that today said imagery is almost always associated with racism and intolerance. Another prime example is the iron cross. That symbol was around way before the Nazi's ever were, but today it's almost exclusively associated with them and their ideals. I'm sorry to say that's just the truth of it now, and governments rightly should not be involved in the use / sale / promotion of something that is so heavily associated with some of the worse parts of human nature. Don't believe me? Just scroll down a bit I'm sad to say.
      Renaurd
      • 3 Years Ago
      Mississippi doesn't offer this license plate, Mississippi does many bad things but this is an undeserved slap at that state. HP this is too misleading, you should take it down.
      billfrombuckhead
      • 3 Years Ago
      What's funny is how many want to forget Pearl Harbor but the Civil War.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Autoblogist
        • 3 Years Ago
        STFH, the Confederate flag represents pure ignorance. You can fly it if you want and claim "southern pride", just like I can have a swastika flag and say "Hey it was a symbol of good luck before the Nazi", but I doubt anybody would buy that. I live in the South and know lots of people with pride in where they live, but none of them have wave a Confederate flag to prove it. People need to stop playing dumb and realize there is more negative history connected to it, period.
          Shanti
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Autoblogist
          @ Sea Urchin: I understand where you're coming from, but you need to understand, this is an official, DMV issued license plate at stake here. Not a license plate cover, not a bumper sticker, not a T-shirt. Do you think you could get a license plate with profanity on it? Nudity? This is not an infringement on freedom of speech in the least. The same way a reporter couldn't cuss on public airwaves and call it freedom of the press, there are some things we can't do/say in the public arena, and that list of things grows when you're talking about Government property.
          0010110
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Autoblogist
          Apparently you are the only thing of pure ignorance. Try reading some actual history instead of regurgitating what someone has fed you. You do realize that other states than those in the confederacy owned slaves? You do realize that the "savior" of the slaves, abe lincoln, himself owned slaves? You do realize that if that war hadn't been fought and good ole linclon had it his way all of the slaves would have been shipped back to Africa and a colony set up for them? Many of which would have died on the way. If the north was so good and not racists why did it take fredrick douglas hounding linclon for so long for him to finally free the blacks?
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Autoblogist
          [blocked]
        Dixon Ticonderoga
        • 3 Years Ago
        No, the real problem is that the Confederacy was a treasonous institution which based it's economic viability on the ownership of human beings for discount labor. It was an ugly thing and it should not be tolerated. If you want to fly the symbol of what was definitionally the enemy of America on your car, have at it. However, the state government should have no part in that (they shouldn't really have part in any politically themed license plates, even ones I agree with). For the record, I was born, raised and live in the deep south.
          ChrisD
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dixon Ticonderoga
          Here! Here! The Confedracy killed more Americans than the Germans, Vietnamese, north Koreans (Chinese), Iraq's or the Afganies. The nice thing about these plates however is that we know where and who they are.
          WillieD
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Dixon Ticonderoga
          ChrisD, you forgot about the Union, they also killed Americans as well.
      Teleny411
      • 3 Years Ago
      Thank-God! The Confederate flag stands for slavery, lynching and intolerance. It is one of the principle symbols of the ku klux Klan. It has no place on anything associated with any government items. That would be like Germany putting SS badges on their license plates.
        Connie Chastain
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Teleny411
        Teleny411, trip back up this thread and read my comments about Nazi Germany and slavery. You will see how wrong you are. You may not admit it, but you will see it. Incidently, nine other states have these license plates, so your opinion is just that -- personal opinion.
          MAX
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Connie Chastain
          The Confederacy was for states except when they weren't. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/11/14.htm Thus, the State of Georgia has forbidden conscription within its borders, and the Confederate government did not dare to revoke the prohibition. Similar friction occurred in Virginia between the “individual state” and the “league of individual states”. The source of the dispute is the refusal of the state government to grant the agents of Mr. Jefferson Davis the right to conscript the militiamen of Virginia and enrol them in the Confederate army. The incident led to an exchange of caustic letters between the Secretary of War and General J. B. Floyd, the notorious character who as Secretary of War of the Union under President Buchanan prepared the secession and in the process managed to “secede” notable portions of the Treasury funds into his private coffers. This chief of the secession, known in the North as “Floyd the thief”, now appears as the champion of the rights of Virginia as against the Confederacy. The Richmond Examiner comments, among other things, on the correspondence between Floyd and the Secretary of War: “The entire correspondence is a good illustration of the resistance and hostility that our state (Virginia) and its army have to suffer at the hands of those who abuse the power of the Confederacy in Richmond. Virginia has been plagued with endless burdens. But everything has limits, and the state will no longer tolerate the repetition of injustice.... Virginia supplied almost all the arms ammunition and military supplies that won the battles of Bethel and Manassas. It gave the Confederate service, out of its own armouries and arsenals, 75,000 rifles and muskets, 233 pieces of artillery and a magnificent arms factory. Its manpower capable of bearing arms has been drained to the dregs in the service of the Confederacy; it had to drive the enemy from its western frontier unaided, and is it not a cause for indignation if the creatures of the Confederate government now dare to make sport of it?” In Texas, too, the repeated drawing-off of its adult male population to the east has aroused antagonism towards the Confederacy. On September 30, Mr. Oldham, the Texas representative, protested to the Congress in Richmond: “In the wild-goose expedition of Sibley, 3,500 picked troops were sent out from Texas to perish in the and plains of New Mexico. The result was to bring the enemy to our borders, which he will cross in the winter. You have transported Texas best troops cast of the Mississippi, dragged them to Virginia, used them at the points of greatest danger, where they were decimated. Three-fourths of every Texas regiment sleep in the grave or have had to be discharged because of illness. If this government continues to draw the able-bodied men out of Texas in this manner in order to keep those regiments up to normal strength, Texas will be ruined, irrevocably ruined. This is unjust and impolitic. My constituents have fam
      stclair5211
      • 3 Years Ago
      I have 3 things to say about this. First they should be allowed to have the plates. Secondly if you are offended by this, grow a pair of beans and look around. Lots more offensive stuff going on. Thirdly, ... I forget the third.
        Making11s
        • 3 Years Ago
        @stclair5211
        Why should American tax payers fund a symbol that celebrates secession?
          Connie Chastain
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Making11s
          All American symbols celebration secession. The Declaration of Independence is the counterpart of the secession documents of the Southern states. Besides, do American taxpayers pay for the license plates Texas motorists put on their vehicles? Texans don't have to buy their own plates? Funny, I think motorists in all other states have to pay for their own.....
      MONTEGOD7SS
      • 3 Years Ago
      I was born and raised in the South, yet somehow I've never owned any slaves. No one in my whole family history every owned slaves either, and we have been here a very long time. My ancestry started in America back around Mayflower times on my father's side, and Cherokee Indian on my mother's goes back much further than that. To here a lib talk we are all just racists and should be overrun with white guilt from things that happened 200 years ago. FWIW, The New York Times ran ads for slaves, and they were in every state. If anyone truly believes the Civil War was about slavery then I ask you do to some research. It was no more about slavery than going into Iraq was about WMDs. I am not surprised TX refused this plate, because in no sense of the definition are they now, or ever, part of the South.
        NDcart
        • 3 Years Ago
        @MONTEGOD7SS
        You had me until that last sentence. Can you clarify?
        DFWJRM
        • 3 Years Ago
        @MONTEGOD7SS
        Sorry MONTEGOD7SS, you make some good points, but you couldn't be any more wrong about Texas being a part of the South. A quote from Louis J. Wortham, A HISTORY OF TEXAS: FROM WILDERNESS TO COMMONWEALTH, Volume 4, Chapter LX, Worthham-Molyneaux Company, Fort Worth, Texas 1924 DURING the period between the submission of the secession ordinance to the people of Texas for approval and the date on which the ordinance went into effect, a group of seceded states, in convention at Montgomery, Ala., organized the Confederate States of America. A constitution was drafted and on February 9 Jefferson Davis of Mississippi was elected president of the new federal republic thus brought into being. Texas was received as a state of the Confederacy immediately after the final adjournment of the secession convention and members of the first congress and two senators were elected from Texas. Louis T. Wigfall and William S. Oldham were the senators named and President Davis appointed John H. Reagan as a member of his cabinet, assigning him to the portfolio of postmaster general. Thus was the plan of "peaceful secession" carried out and thus did Texas take her place in the Confederacy.
        Mark
        • 3 Years Ago
        @MONTEGOD7SS
        If you had researched the Confederate Constitution, you would know that the ONLY main difference between it and the US Constitution regards slavery. One week after Lincoln's inaugural address, on March 11, the Confederacy adopted a constitution. Given the long-held arguments that the crisis was over such issues as federal power and states' rights, and not slavery, it might be assumed that the new Confederate nation adopted some very different form of government, perhaps more like the Articles of Confederation, under which the states operated before the Constitution was adopted. In fact, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America was based almost verbatim on the U.S. Constitution. There were, however, several significant but relatively minor differences, as well as one big difference: • The preamble added the words, "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character," and instead of forming "a more perfect Union,” it was forming "a permanent federal government." It also added an invocation to "Almighty God" absent from the original. • It permitted a tariff for revenue but not for protection of domestic industries, though the distinction between the two was unclear. • It altered the executive branch by creating a presidency with a single six-year term, instead of (then) unlimited four-year terms. However, the presidency was strengthened with a line item veto with which certain parts of a budget can be removed by the president. (Many U.S. presidents of both parties have argued for the line item veto as a means to control congressional spending. A line item veto was finally passed in 1996 and used first by President Bill Clinton. However, in 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the line item veto was unconstitutional.) • The major difference between the two constitutions regarded slavery. First, the Confederate version didn't bother with neat euphemisms ("persons held in service") but simply and honestly called it slavery. While it upheld the ban on the importation of slaves from abroad, the Confederate constitution removed any restrictions on slavery. Slavery was going to be protected and extended into any new territory the Confederacy might acquire. In other words, while "states' rights" is a powerful abstraction, and the back-and-forth between federal power and the power of the states has been a theme throughout American history, there was really only one right that the southern states cared about. Examining the speeches by southern leaders and the Confederate constitution itself underscored the fact that the only right in question was the right to continue slavery without restriction, both where it already existed and in the new territories being opened up in the West.
      Bill Burke
      • 3 Years Ago
      I'd suggest the Sons of Confederate Veterans design and manufacture license plate frames that include the battle flag and their logo thus appropriately honoring their relatives. The cost of the frames would be a tax deductable donation and the frames would persurve the memory of the sacrifices made by these brave men as they did their duty as it was understood at that time.These frames must be accepted, regardless of your point of view, as Constitutional "free speech".. In my mind the Confederacy is as much a part of our history as anything else and political correctness, regardless of motive, will never erase those heros who defended their families with their lives.
        Theo Crawford
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Bill Burke
        Yep. Gotta support all those brave men and women that fought to keep African Americans enslaved. Political correctness has nothing to do with this, you ignorant tool. The Confederacy fought in the CIvil War primarily to defend the rights for white male landowners to own slaves and continue to consider them their property. Again, if you're not comprehending what I'm saying- defending the rights of men to literally own other men,and force them to labor tirelessly without pay. You're going to sit here, and tell me that to this day, you still stand behind the cause of that war? If so, you go right on ahead and make yourself one of those license plate frames. I'll be looking for you on the road.
      RocketRed
      • 3 Years Ago
      Good. Do people in France drive around with "Vichy" themed license plates? Spare me all the yakking about whether the war was about slavery before or after or whatever. Bottom line is that it is absurd for a goverment to honor a failed attempt to destroy that country by armed sedition. It should be viewed itself as an act of rebellion by what ever entity tries to do it. TM Texas, free speech is not relevant and introducing the first amendment in favor of the plates is substantively incorrect and in this case frankly outrageous. First of all, the First Amendment does not grant a right to make the goverment give you government property that says something you really like, espeically if that thing it is seditious. Second, it takes a ton of chutzpah to bring up the constitution in the discussion because the flag at issue was the standard of the entity that sought to get rid of it. And in any event, the most important amendment to the constitution had to be crammed down their rebelious throats, providing equal protection, without which the protection of speech, and every other constitutional right, was moot for a large segment of the population.
        TMTexas
        • 3 Years Ago
        @RocketRed
        Then why the Buffalo Soldier plate? Why UT, A&M, and LSU plates? It's part of our history, bottom line. Those who choose to ignore their history are doomed to repeat it . . . on way or another.
          RocketRed
          • 3 Years Ago
          @TMTexas
          Did the Univerisity of Texas field an army to rebel aganist the Uniteds States goverment? The moral equation doesn't work. As far as the legal equation, yes, you can win a "viewpoint discrimination" action, inasmuch as a state has already decided to give out plates that are political in nature, e.g.,, "choose life." But this shows that such decisions have nothing to do with whether UT gets a plate but rather that the rebellion plate is political, not about institional affiliation, or for that matter, "history." And looking at the fact that that his country guards with a high level of legal scrutiny against disrimination of viewpoint where the federal goverment has created a forum for speech, I don't know how you can stand behind the ripe hypocrisy of of confederacy fetishists fling complaints in a United States federal court seeking equal treatment under the Constitution for the right to make a statement on a piece of federal property. It's almost amusing. As far as what the stars and bars really stand for, don't bother with historical violins. I lived long enough in the South and heard plenty about how hanging up the flag in is about Heritage and how the whole slavery thing is just kind of unfortuante accidental association. As Justice Holmes said, even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and stumbled over.
          Theo Crawford
          • 3 Years Ago
          @TMTexas
          You people are morons. You know what- they should have Nazi plates in German. Why not, right? It's a part of their history. A sizable portion of Germany was involved in Hitler's Nazi regime, so everybody should have a right to drive around with a swastika on the back of their car. Does that sound right to you? No! Oh, but that's different from this, right? The Confederacy didn't commit genocide, their supporters just decided to enslave an entire race rather than outright kill them (though man black were killed during that time). Seriously, the ignorance on here is downright astonishing. I find it very hard to believe that any of you are functioning members of society. Think before you voice your support for what can best be described as a war intended to split the US in two over the commonly held belief in the south that men with white skin were superior in all ways to men of color. Truly pathetic.
        DFWJRM
        • 3 Years Ago
        @RocketRed
        Good luck with that RocketRed, and you too Slacks. I wish you were right, but sadly you're mislead by your narrow view of liberty and freedom. As stated in the article these Confederate folks have sued and won on three different occasions to put this through. They do infact have the right...at least until the liberals take that away from us.
        Connie Chastain
        • 3 Years Ago
        @RocketRed
        Ah, Rocket Red, there was no attempt to destroy the country by armed sedition. The Southern states seceded peacefully and democratically, most by convention of delegates elected by the citizens at the county level. This was their right -- IS their right, is the creator-endowed right of ALL people. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson established that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights. One right he specifically identifies is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and create another that suits them better. This right both pre-exists and transcends the U.S. Constitution. How grotesque, then, that the only time Americans have attempted to exercise this right, the government that was supposed to secure it for them made brutal war on them instead. Armed sedition? No, armed invasion by a government no longer legitimately governing the Southern states. The Confederates did not seek to get rid of the Constitution, only to leave the association it governed. And, in fact, it did remain in place the entire time they were out of the Union, you do realize -- although Lincoln violated it something like eight times. What kind of puny north/federal government need the Southern states they so hated in order to make it as a country? Look at you, you still hate the South....
      Thor
      • 3 Years Ago
      Good. That line about 'Heritage, not Hate' is bogus. The Confederacy was formed to allow the south to continue to possess slaves. Some might claim that they were fighting for states rights, not slaves, but they were only fighting for states rights so they could keep slaves. If it really is 'heritage', why would they focus on the four years that was dominated by a bloody war to keep slaves, rather than the 230 years they've been under the United States flag? In my mind, this is like a German flying a Nazi flag and saying that he is proud of his heritage, and it's not about the holocaust at all. If it was really about heritage, he wouldn't focus on the most shameful 10 years in German history.
        0010110
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Thor
        Actually linclon wasn't going to take away slave ownership in the states that already allowed it. The issue over slavery started because they were not going to allow any of the new colonies in the west to use salves. The only thing "bogus" here is your knowledge.
          Dixon Ticonderoga
          • 3 Years Ago
          @0010110
          You are correct, had the south had its way not only would slavery have not been abolished, it would have been spread. This is a good thing how? More to the point, rather than undermining his point you actually, rightfully, pointed out that it was actually worse. There are a lot of things about being southern that one can and should rightfully be proud of (I'm personally fond of our entire lexicon of insults that sound like compliments) but The Confederacy is nowhere on that list.
          0010110
          • 3 Years Ago
          @0010110
          @ Dixon, The point I was making is that there has been so much misinformation spread that people begin to treat it as fact and believe it. Everyones argument is always that the confederacy started the war because they wanted to keep their slaves and that the North wanted to take them away. In fact that is not true. No one in Georgia, South Carolina, or any other original slave owning confederate state was worried about losing their slaves. Abrham lincoln was going to allow them to keep their slaves. With this being the actual fact of the time why would all of those states fight solely for the right of allowing new territories out west to own slaves? That is why I am saying you can not claim that the war was solely about slavery because there was no threat to current slave owners in the states of the confederacy. I in no way am saying slavery is a good thing or should have continued.
          Thor
          • 3 Years Ago
          @0010110
          Oh my...probably wont see this as it's a day late, but oh well. Your right that a great deal of tension was over the expansion of slavery into the western territories, but why? At that point, there was a balance in Congress between slave/free states, so that if a bill were presented to abolish slavery (and there were a LOT of people calling for it to be banned) the representatives from the south could prevent it from being passed in the senate. The North had a much larger population than the south, so they could already pass such a bill in the House of Representatives, but the balance in the Senate ensured that the bill would die there. If another state were added that were a free state, then the balance is disrupted, and free states win. The south was terrified of this, because while only 10 percent of southerners had slaves (and of those 1% owned 90% of the slaves), it was central to the southern plantation economy. And yes, the south was worried that Lincoln was going to take away slaves. Why do you think calls to cede came immediately after his election? So this really is all about slavery. The general movement to make it seem as though it isn't is an effort by confederate supporters/descendants/sympathizers to decrease the racial stigma of the Confederacy. I don't mean to sound to elitist here, but I'm a U.S. History teacher. I know what I'm talking about.
      Myself
      • 3 Years Ago
      Wavin' a flag of a non-existing entity? Can you get more pathetic than that?
        0010110
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Myself
        Yes. Apparently being you.
        Connie Chastain
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Myself
        The SCV isn't waving a flag. The flag is part of their logo which will be printed on the license plates, which are made of stiff metal and don't wave. I'm not sure why you think commemorating soldiers who fought to defend their homes, families and communities from a brutal invading army is ... pathetic...
          MAX
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Connie Chastain
          If they were so brutal they would have exterminated y'all
    • Load More Comments