'Confederate History Month' Declared By Virginia

[wilt the stilt]

Source: Huffington Post

Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell has declared April to be "Confederate History Month," the first time in 8 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the state.

In the statement, McDonnell says that the Confederate history "should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered," and that its leaders "fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/confederate-history-month_n_527363.html

---

God, It never ends. I live in GA and I need to leave. Lincoln, I blame you. You should have let them go.

[ellie]

1. Someone needs to tell these

idiots that they lost! Get over it!

[nosmokes]

20. you & i know the south lost, but the south refuses to admit to admit it's over...

funny cos it's true, at least in certain circles which appear to be growing.

[LibertyLover]

75. Years ago I asked a friend of mine from Virginia who was a

Revolutionary War re-enactor why the Rev. War and not the Civil War. She gave me a very cogent and well-reasoned response, which was "I prefer to re-enact a war that everybody agrees is over." I thought of her today when I heard what the VA governor had done.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Traitors have holidays in Virginia. What next, take a treasonous dog to work day?

[roguevalley]

51. my dad used to say that the south shall rise again. High enough to

kiss a good yankee's ass.

To all Southerns: it isn't about you. Its about the idiots among you. We love you, we just hate the sinners.

[sudopod]

91. Tennessean here

My family went on vacation and saw Yorktown a few years ago. Some Revolutionary War reenactors there were firing a period cannon with gunpowder alone over an empty field in the neighboring national park. When a little boy asked why they didn't add cannonballs, one of the men said "Well, the last time Virginians fired cannons at federal property, it didn't go so well."

:3

[roguevalley]

99. I love Virginia. Some of mom's family came from there. So much

history to celebrate and they choose treason. Very sad. Very cute reply by that reenactor. By the by, Tennessee is so beautiful.

[HereSince1628]

3. You, sir, and I use that term charitably, do not 'get' Southern Culture

NEITHER DO I!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[activa8tr]

4. Can someone please give Virginia back to England? Oh wait..

Oh I know, England won't take her back.

But if they want to live in the past, how about 1607?

[Captain Hilts]

5. We've already got at least four threads going on this....nt

[newscott]

6. What's next, Tory remembrance day in New England?

[No Elephants]

8. N.E. sent the Tories packing to Canada or England or elsewhere.

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish Day, maybe.

Adios, M.F. Day, maybe.

(somewhat omparable to Evacuation Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_Day_(Massachusetts)


Tory Remembrance Day in N.E., though? Not so much.

[newscott]

74. Vermont too. A lot of them moved to Vermont. LOL.

[No Elephants]

76. LOL. Maybe they thought they'd reached Canada?

http://www.bucklinsociety.net/JohnsSolomon.htm

[Historic NY]

7. Its like having NAZI day all over...honoring the battles losers.

[Arugula Latte]

9. That's Un-American. The Confederates were against America.

Fuck them and fuck Bob McDonnell.

[LiberalLoner]

14. 2nd n/t

[dflprincess]

87. Strangely, there are those in Virginia who have called the Minnesota Historical Society "un american...

because the MHS refuses to return a flag the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment capture at Gettysburg. Every so often this fight flares up between Minnesota & Virginia. It is believed to be the only flag not returned to its state of origin.

From the Washington Time 2/24/2004:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/24/20040224-095634-7338r/





Pvt. Marshall Sherman with the flag he captured at Gettysburg during Pickett's Charge. Sherman donated the flag to the state historical society when he died in 1896

http://www.1stminnesota.net/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/24/20040224-095634-7338r/

Chris Caveness, executive director of the 28th Virginia Infantry Regiment, a group of Roanoke Valley re-enactors, wants the flag returned to Virginia as a symbolic gesture to honor those who died in battle. He called the Minnesota Historical Society "un-American."

"The 28th Virginia Infantry Regiment suffered significant casualties at Gettysburg and many of them were never recovered. They were buried in mass graves," Mr. Caveness said. "To bring the flag home is a way to bring those forebears home."

(1st Minneostoa also "suffered significant casualties at Gettysburg" - 80%)

The whole thing is a silly argument but I'm inclined to think that, as long as Virginia continues to honor the Confederacy, Pvt. Sherman (who lost a leg later in the war) would probably not want the flag returned.

[No Elephants]

10. Funny thing, Wiltt tthe Stilt. As soon as I saw the thread title, my reaction was

"Groan. Ironic to think, Lincoln was one of my very heroes."

[No Elephants]

11. Here come the "Hang on to your hoop skirts, ladies" posters in 5-4-3-2-

'It's our HERITAGE!"

:puke:

[damntexdem]

12. Now the GOP owns the Confederacy.

Remind them next time they note that they ended slavery.

[DCBob]

13. I hope all those VA Dems who did not show up to vote...

realize what a horrible mistake that was.

[booley]

15. Does that history include the slavery part?

Becauase despite modern cons downplaying it, Slavery was a big part of why the South wanted to secede.

[StevieM]

23. Agreed. Without slavery there would have been no succession or war IMO. (eom)

[liberation]

33. It is a common misconception regarding the role of ending slavery with the civil war

Just like every major event in American history, the civil war was mostly about one thing: taxes and commercial relations (and to some extent foreign influence trying to destabilize the Union)

Slavery makes for a great Hollywood meme though. I will give you that.

Even though Lincoln may have been against slavery at a personal level. He made it clear that had the South accepted the conditions of the Union, he would have had no problem allowing slavery to continue as an institution, if it meant that the war could be avoided. There is also the issue, that slavery was only abolished on the confederate states... it was allowed to continue on the border states which remained loyal to the union.

The fact that most Americans don't want to face regarding slavery, is that for all intents and purposes Blacks would not become 1st class citizens for almost 1 century after the civil war ended. But as usual, perception is more important than reality in our society.

[noiretextatique]

38. great post...and thanks for the reminder about jim crow

ending slavery did little to end racism and discrimination.

[No Elephants]

78. That post was more like denying the Holocaust, then saying anti-Semitism still exists.

[noiretextatique]

92. what? that post was a reminder that racism didn't end when slavery was abolished

at least that's what i got from it.

[kwassa]

49. The Civil War was fought over slavery. That is historical fact.

It is quite tiresome to hear this popular Internet piece of revisionism regarding the origins of the Civil War.

There is real history out there. The proximate cause of the Civil War was slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

The main explanation for the origins of the American Civil War is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. States' rights and the tariff issue became entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it. Other important factors were party politics, Abolitionism, Southern nationalism, Northern nationalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and modernization in the Antebellum Period.

[The Croquist]

56. Sorry but to a large degree liberation (33) is right.

The Civil war WAS fought over slavery but only by the South. In the North it was fought over "Preserving the Union" (AKA no "States Rights"). The great irony is that today the Southerners will tell you that it was fought over, not "Slavery", but "States Rights" and the Yankees will tell you it was fought over "Slavery" not "States Rights".

A big secondary issue (related to slavery of course) was that as states were being added the South demanded an equal amount of "slave" states and "free" states. The big problem there was that the part of the country we were expanding into was not "slave friendly".

There really wasn't much support initially in the North over emancipation. It was about 18 months after the war started that the US proclaimed the Emancipation Proclamation and that freed almost no slaves initially and never freed all. From a military perspective, the single biggest thing that the Emancipation Proclamation did was to encourage slaves to flee plantations and disrupt the southern economy. Don't underestimate that. The North won more economically then militarily.

Throughout the war African-Americans were largely treated like crap by both sides.

[kwassa]

58. The North fought because it was attacked by the South.

It was the War of Southern Aggression after all. Fort Sumter, a Federal base attacked and captured by Southern militias.

The underlying reasons for the war start with the original Constitutional compromise, but was about whether slavery would be extended into the new territories the US was acquiring in the west. This battle started 40 years before the Civil War.

[Solomon]

70. Oh please, what a crock. What do you think "state's rights"

was about?

Keep on dreaming. You need to read some history books. The war changed dramatically when blacks were admitted into the Army. Quite a bit more than "encouraging them to flee plantations and disrupt".

To say that the North didn't believe in "state's rights" is a crock of crap. Don't be confused by "state's rights" being used as a euphemnism for slavery, and "state's rights" on a lot of other issues.

[No Elephants]

79. Sorry, but kwassa is the one who's correct. Liberation's post is revisionism,

usually propagated in recent decades by RWers and/or Southerners in denial.

Please see the replies to Liberation (and to you) on this sub-thread, esp. Struggle for Progress's reply and Reply # 77, which I posted before seeing any of the posts in the subthread, including yours.

BTW, I notice that you've been a DUer since December 2007, yet have under 1,000 posts. Please see Reply # 77 as to that as well.

And you're from Georgia.

[LarryNM]

62. Expansion to Acquire Resources Exacerbating Existing Conditions

A problem as old as mankind itself. Seemed to be a war over competing economic systems where slavery was an integral part of at least one.

[struggle4progress]

57. Perhaps you should go back and reads the secession ordinances: they're generally about slavery

After that you could read the so-called Civil war amendments, which were the immediate fruit of the Union struggle. If that's not enough, go listen to some of the popular contemporary Northern songs, like "Rally round the flag"

[theHandpuppet]

68. THANK YOU

Every time I hear someone spout that neoconfederate revisionist bullcrap I want to scream. Not about slavery? You're right -- some folks have conveniently forgotten about such "inconvenient" things as the Articles of Secession. Here's just one example, that of Texas:

Texas



A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* , the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

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.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* ; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.

[mix]

73. This neo-Confederate revisionism is insidious,

historical ignorance at its worst.

[CynicalObserver]

66. thank you for a rational voice of reason and factual data on a basic

overview of the sectionalist issues leading to the civil war (and to the 1840 crisis as well, iirc, it has been a long time since I read about this.)

this thread is full of garbage on the topic, I hope your post doesn't get lost.

[mix]

72. A neo-Confederate meme that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery,

this is "a rational voice of reason"?

:rofl:

[mix]

71. What is your evidence for the bizarre claim that slavery

is "a great Hollywood meme" for understanding the causes of the Civil War?

[No Elephants]

77. Read the Articles of Secession. South Carolina's will do. Most of the seceeding states

followed South Carolina's lead. http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

BTW, SteveM never said slavery was the only cause of the civil war. However, here's a list of the alleged top 5 causes of the civil war.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

Each of the five items comprising the list has at its core the issue of slavery, including "states' rights" which was about the "right" of each state to make its own decision about the abomination of slavery, as the articles of secession demonstrate.

Later, as you probably now, "states' rights" was often used in an attempt to justify Jim Crow laws. Schmuck McCain even used it to justify his opposition to making Martin Luther King day a holiday. Goldwater did something similar. "States' rights" sounds so much more socially acceptable--P.C.--than "let states discriminate against them coloreds as much as they damn please."

Fact: Slavery was an abomination. (Still is.)

Fact: Slavery existed in the U.S.

Fact: Slavery found its way into the U.S. and into the U.S. Constitution largely because of the South.

Fact: Economically, for the South, slavery was a hell of a lot more significant than any tax ever imposed by the U.S.

Fact. Slavery, especially the issue of extension of slavery into the territories, was a major cause of the Civil War.

Fact: There was a holocaust in Germany and people deny that, too. But, neither denials nor spinning nor revisionism changes history.

I note that you (or your screen name, anyway) have all of 1876 posts in almost three years. I've noticed similar things about posters (or screen names) who show up on threads like this to defend the honor of the South as to the Civil War and/or the South's nostalgia about that era. Not sure exactly what I conclude from it, but I sure have noticed it.

[MadHound]

95. Wow, the revisionist history is getting deep here

Let me ask you this, if the Civil War wasn't about slavery, why did every state mention slavery as the issue in their secession statements?

Why is every other issue that Southerners at the time (folks like Jefferson Davis) tried to come up with, state's rights, etc. closely tied with the perpetuation of slavery?

Why was it feared, at the time, that Lincoln would take slaves out of the South?

Your position is nothing but ludicrous, revisionist history. The issue of slavery had been simmering since the Constitutional Convention, and it reached a boiling point with the election of Lincoln. Trying to pretend that slavery wasn't the reason for the secession of the Southern states is nothing more than revisionist, apologist history.

[unc70]

63. Free blacks could not live in Lincoln's Illinois, "Free" states meant white-only

While I am wary of his intentions in VA, I think that we would all benefit from re-examining the events from 150 years ago to understand their complexities, rather than simplistically having "feeing the slaves" is one episode in the morality play that passes for American history, a series of triumphs of good over evil, following God's preordained plan for this bountiful land He has bestowed. Columbia.

"Preserving the Union" was one of the primary justifications for the war. That was important because most of the Federal revenue came from the Southern states. Northern banks would have problems collecting on loans, the NE textile industry needed the cheap cotton for their mills, the railroads their business and possibly their investments in tracks, etc.

If the South left the Union, the Midwest might leave and form a third country. Resentment there of Washington and of the banks, railroads, etc. was nearly equal to that in the South and had festered from the founding of country.

The battle over admission of "Free vs Slave States" was closer to being "White-only vs Slave States".

It wasn't just that slavery was not allowed in states of the Northwest Territories, it was that "people of color" were not allowed to move to most of these states and could transit only after posting a bond. In states where people of color were allowed to live, they had few rights, could not own property in many states, and were denied entry to various vocations.

That same non-slave black man ("person of color") in NC had the same rights as a white man, except the rights to vote and hold elective office which were taken away in the 1830's. He could still own property, including slaves, have apprentices and indentures bonded to him (including whites), testify in court, own a business, and make contracts. Of course, no married woman had these rights anywhere, nor did he in most states.

The best opportunity for dealing with slavery was probably lost when resolving several related issues would have made it much more difficult to ratification. The number of slaves at that time was relatively small, grants of new land could have compensated slave owners, and many political and religious leaders were opposed to slavery. (For example, here in NC those opposed to slavery included the Quakers, Deists, Universalists, and Methodists.)

The problem for everyone was for after the slaves were freed, what then? For many, particularly in states with few slaves, the answer was to make them leave or send them back to Africa. In states like MD, VA, NC, and SC with larger slave populations that would have been nearly impossible.What about those free people of color whose families might have lived in NC or VA for generations? What was their status, their rights? Were they citizens?

So issues like this were put aside for later. Unfortunately, the invention of the cotton gin only a couple of years later changed everything. The demand for cotton first by English mills and later (after industrial espionage finally provided the secret technology) for the textile mills in New England. Many of these mills were owned by the same families who had grown wealthy from the slave trade. Newport and Boston old money was from the slave trade. Their mills depended on cheap slave-grown cotton from large plantations in the South, some owned by those families.

Yes it was about slavery. And about racism. About predestination vs free will. Industrial vs agrarian. Urban vs rural.

Yes, the South lost. So did everyone else.

Especially NC where in five years a third of the men were killed or died from wounds or infections and another third had been wounded, many losing one or more limbs.

Get over it? Not likely.

[No Elephants]

83. "Get over it? Not likely." The Union suffered casualties, too. And got over it, even though the

union was the victor. Until re-enactment became a moneymaker for actor wannabes, no one up North was dressing up in Civil War outfits or looking back with nostalgia or proposing a "We Won the Civil War" month. And even then, most of the re-eanactments here are about the Revolution, when we overthrew an oppressor, as opposed to a civil war, that tore our country apart over one of its most disgraceful issues.

Why the hell does Virginia want a "We lost the civil war" month? I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the fact that the Governor is a Republican.

Seriously, get over it.

As far as your cited reasons for the war, please see Reply #70 and other replies to Liberation.

BTW, I note your profile indicates that you have been a DUer since 2002, yet have only 1292 posts. On that, please see both Reply #11 and Reply @70.

[unc70]

93. The stain of racism & slavery lingers on everyone, North and South

I am white and from NC, grew up under segregation in the 1950's, and have tried to deal with my "inherited guilt" in several ways. First, in my personal and political actions to do what I can to end segregation, discrimination, poverty, hate, and bigotry; I can't change the past, but I can change my present and maybe the future. I helped integrate my school, worked for civil rights and human rights in various ways, but I have made less of a difference than I had hoped.

Second, I have tried to understand my family's part in all this, from when they first arrived up until today. Good, bad; slave owner, abolishionist, or both; some of almost everything you can think of, plus things I had not imagined and did not understand. The more I learned the less I knew, and the more questions I had. As a child I rejected the "states rights" and other Southern explanations for the Civil War because they were being used to defend segregation. By high school, I had realized that the textbook/Northern version was no better.

News is what is in newspapers. History is what is in history books.

And the winners get to write the history books, always good over evi.

Their cause was noble, their hands clean, their actions honorable. The losers were evil, their actions immoral, their cruelty an affront to all humanity, their defeat and destruction God's will.

Each of us needs to approach history with the same scrutiny DUers give to current events. DUers are great when collectively digging out the back stories, finding the connections among the players, the corruption, the motivations, following the money, moving past the talking.

The South can not get over the Civil War until the rest of you can.

Look at the posts in this thread. The taunting, blanket statements about groups and regions, pointing out how many posts someone has, abusive language, and slurs in this thread would not be tolerate at DU when directed at some other group.

As a small first step, search on the "DeWolf slave trade" which has yielded a book, movie, and a lot of discussion.

[noiretextatique]

100. not to mention jim crow, which remained the law of the land in every state

100 years after slavery...north, south, west, and east. i believe slavery was the central issue of the civil war, but jim crow wasn't just a southern problem and in some ways, southerners have progressed more on racial issues than the rest of the country. jim crow, though practiced more severely in some areas than others, negates the myth of an enlightened america outside of the south.

[Demeter]

24. A Lot of So-Called Capitalists Are All For Bringing Back Slavery

and they admire the Mexican wetbacks who work so hard for so little....and want all their employees to be like that.

oh, and health care and retirement are degenerate. Unions are simply beyond the pale.

[liberation]

36. Bringing back?

For all intents and purposes, the middle and lower classes in our country are waged slaves.

Try to affect the bottom line of a corporation, or revel against corporate power. You'll see a similar reaction than a slave would have suffered if they were to attempt to leave their plantations or attack their owners.

Race has always been a principal weapon in the divide-and-conquer arsenal. For all intents and purposes the average poor white in the South, was not that much better off than slaves. Yet they felt "superior" enough to hate and subjugate blacks in name of the same white masters which were economically oppressing them too.

[No Elephants]

80. Yes, and African American slaves sometimes felt superior to "poor white trash."

So?

[underpants]

16. We already have lots and lots of second place trophy

you can navigate by them in the city (Richmond)

[Third Doctor]

17. WTF?

All four years or it right? The word treason just doesn't register in some places I guess.

[underpants]

18. I was just about to post that- a month to "study" a 4 year period?

Well..... ya know...... the way we uh......Virginians talk..... this could take just... a... bit... longer than ....uh... expected

[boomerbust]

19. Yankee History Month

[rpannier]

28. I would call that month

The Winners History Month

Yankee History Month does rock though

[IndianaGreen]

21. and fought for their slaves

Jefferson Davis was as racist as they came in those days.

[roguevalley]

52. he was a cousin. I apologize to EVERYONE about him. We don't

talk about him much.

[Jax]

64. kick

Alyce

[MrScorpio]

22. I'm sure all the black people in Virginia will be glad to celebrate

I'm glad that I'm back in Michigan now

[Lionel Mandrake]

47. When we were on vacation in Virginia,

visiting sites of Civil War battles and suchlike, my wife and I visited the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond. There were lots of black people outside, but we didn't see a single black person inside the building, where among other items on display were a number of Confederate Battle Flags (i.e., Stars and Bars).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Confederacy
"Of particular note is the Museum's collection of over 500 original, wartime, battle flags that were carried by the Confederate Army. Some of the flags were donated by veterans in the early years of the Museum. Others, regimental flags that were captured during the war that were originally housed in the archives of the U.S. War Department, were formally transferred to the Museum either by Act of the U.S. Congress or by Act of the Virginia General Assembly, depending on the level of unit identification of the flag."

Those flags may have symbolized military valor at one time, but now, like the Nazi swastika, they symbolize racism.

[underpants]

25. WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, (full text)

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/OurCommonwealth/Proclamations/2010/ConfederateHistoryMonth.cfm

Confederate History Month

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and

WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present; and

WHEREAS, Confederate historical sites such as the White House of the Confederacy are open for people to visit in Richmond today, and

WHEREAS, all Virginians can appreciate the fact that when ultimately overwhelmed by the insurmountable numbers and resources of the Union Army, the surviving, imprisoned and injured Confederate soldiers gave their word and allegiance to the United States of America, and returned to their homes and families to rebuild their communities in peace, following the instruction of General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, who wrote that, “...all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace."; and

WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

[mbperrin]

30. Okay, let's reflect. Virginia and others tried to leave the Union, got a

whole bunch of people killed and created a huge pocket of poverty as the aftermath of their loss in that war.

Pretty much sums it up.

Now, let's think of other things just as pleasant: Challenger explosion? Assassinations of various civil rights leaders? Jim Crow? See, all these things are just as pleasant to contemplate, which means they're all horrific. Period.

[roguevalley]

53. I suggest they spend an entire week on Appomatox Courthouse.

[madmom]

26. Gee I wonder if they'll have a parade with hoop skirts and....

slaves...in chains, wouldn't that be charmin'



just in case:sarcasm:

[rpannier]

27. Traitor History Month

on edit:

Losers History Month is another option

[Yupster]

60. Loser history month

sounds good.

I don't think Traitor month is either fair or accurate.

Using my state of Texas as the example, from 1836 to 1861, Texas was a state of Mexico, a Republic, a US state, and a Confederate state. That's four different governments in 25 years.

The voters of Texas left the USA the same way they joined it, with a vote. They voted 80 % - 20 % to leave the USA even with the Governor campaigning vigorously against leaving. They really didn't expect to get ground to dust by their vote. Changing governments they thought was their right.

Anyway, once they voted to leave the union, you could hardly reasonably call them traitors to the country they voted to leave. How can you be a traitor to a country you don't belong to.

An interesting sidebar is that Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason.

He hired a high power group of northern lawyers to defend him financed curiously by northern industrialists who were anti-slavery.

Anyway, his defense was that secession was Constitutional, therefore he could not be a traitor, and would the northern armies kindly leave the Confederacy, apologize for all the destruction and allow President Davis to resume his office and start the long task of rebuilding his nation.

Davis demanded his Constitutional right to a public and speedy trial.

The government kept postponing his trial though while he remained in prison.

The problem was the issue was by no means a settled Constitutional issue. The diocument was silent on the topic. The original ratification debates assumed states could leave if they didn't like the new government they were signing on to.

It would be a true disaster if the Supreme Court ruled states had the right to secession. What then?

So the federal government never put Davis on trial. They just left hiom indicted year after year while he demanded his trial. Eventually he was bailed out and never tried though left indicted.

[rpannier]

65. Interesting

And tragic

Tragic that they denied him his right to a speedy trial

I'm guessing they were afraid to give him an opportunity to defend himself for fear people might find his reasoning sound.

In the end, it's irrelevant why.
They denied him his rights -- regardless of the crime he was charged with

[24601]

69. Jefferson Davis was one of the 6 West Point Grads who became

President - can you name the others - I'll spot you Grant & Eisenhower....

[No Elephants]

81. Lincoln, who was a lawyer before he was President, thought secession was treason, with very good

reason. And I dispute your claim as to what the original ratification debates "assumed." It may have been left out of the Constitution intentionally because opinions on the issue were deeply divided. That does not mean that everyone "assumed" a right to secession. That would have been bizarre, given that the predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, spoke of a PERPETUAL union.

Texas is a special case, because of the specific conditions on which it became a state, so Texas's situation did not apply to the other Confederate states.

Revisionism on that issue has run rampant, especially among Southerners and RWers everywhere, much like revisionism has run rampant about the relationship between slavery and the Civil War.

[eShirl]

29. Here's all they need to remember about the Confederacy:

YOU LOST, MUTHAFUKKAZ!


:party: :bounce: :toast: :beer: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem: :dem:

[liberation]

31. Apparently doublethink deserves its own holiday. Orwell would be ever so proud....

The super "patriotic" South all to willing to celebrate treason, again.

[AlbertCat]

40. About that Treason thing...

You guys... I am a Southerner... but I'm not ray-rah go Confederacy! nut. But you must realize that the authority of the Federal Government is a POST Civil War thing. You think it was treason because of the way we think about the government TODAY.... not the very different way they thought in the mid 19th century. The war changed that...from the very begining.

Most people.... North and South... didn't believe the Negro had a soul back then! You are pure-t nuts if you think most soldiers from the North were fighting to free the black man! Of course there were many great thinkers and writers of the time who knew this loose collection of states idea...as well as slavery...were long obsolete. And they were. Just remember, the 19th century was a very different place with very different values than today. Like...WOMEN didn't get to vote before slaves did! I mean... what? See? Crazy thinking! And the Emancipation Proclamation only frees slaves in unoccupied southern states.

I once costumed a show made up of court cases in rural areas concerning property disputes.... the property being slaves. It was surreal! Wives suing husbands because they won't come to bed with them, but go down to the slave quarters instead....and they LOSE! There was one story about a girl (18? 19?) who is a free woman born of a black man and a white woman (the worse!) and she is such a pariah she cannot get any kind of work and her baby is starving...and state laws say she cannot marry the father because he is a slave (she's free remember). So she is trying to become a slave so she can survive! This is after 1863!!! She LOSES too. I mean... it's a strange place, the 19th century!

BTW.... my favorite story was about a black woman freed after the Constitution was made law... and many people freed their slaves. So she buys up some land in NC. Quickly the "free the slaves" sentiment ebbs so she starts buying up her relatives! Technically, they are her slaves on her plantation, but of course they live like a commune.

Anyway... I just wanted to get the idea across that it's much more complicated than Gone With the Wind...which is fiction, BTW.

[sybylla]

46. I've just spent a lot of time reading the Milwaukee newspapers from the civil war era

And what I saw there proves your claims dead wrong. From the addresses by various Wisconsin governors and mayors to the very coverage of the war day-to-day, there was an absolute preponderance of revulsion over slavery starting long before the war and the traitorous actions (their words) of the secessionists that kicked it off. In fact, Wisconsin was then and still is very proud of the fact that we were the first state to challenge the Fugitive Slave Act in the courts and we won. This wasn't just the sentiment in Milwaukee; I found those same sentiments expressed even more strongly in some of the small town papers of the time.

From the time of the Federalist papers on, there had been a stream of thought that embraced a strong federal government in this country. The fact is, most of the south didn't and their solution was to secede. That slavery and the regulation/demolition of it was the crux of the argument doesn't mean it wasn't a hugely important cause and was thought of as such for a very long time by "most people" in the north before the war began. Where you came up with the theory that people didn't think slaves had souls I cannot comprehend.

Whether or not slavery was an excuse by the powers that be in DC to exert that federal control is meaningless, as clearly there was a strong rallying cry around slavery, soldiers living and dying to end it and protect the union. No small cause for them, no matter how you try to diminish it. Did they use slavery to build sentiment for the federal cause like they used 9/11 to build cause to go into Iraq? Perhaps. But that doesn't change the fact that the sentiment on the ground in so many parts of this country truly was about the dual purpose of protecting the country and freeing the slaves.

For years I'd been fed the same steady diet of "it wasn't really about the slavery" as you've had. The research I've done over the past year on this war in my state and across the country has turned that claim on its head.

[CynicalObserver]

67. basing a view of political history

from newspapers pretty much ignores political realities and realpolitik, which newspapers seem to ignore when reporting on politics.

[No Elephants]

86. Civil War newpapers, though perhaps not perfect, are far better than revisionism, and

and syblla was replying to a post chock full of revisionism and irrelevancies.

Are you disagreeing with syblla's conclusions, or only with reliance on newspapers of the time?

[No Elephants]

84. +1 (Wish I rec your post.) Thank you.

[No Elephants]

85. "But you must realize that the authority of the Federal Government is a POST Civil War thing." BULL

SHIT revisonism. With all due respect.


"You think it was treason because of the way we think about the government TODAY.... not the very different way they thought in the mid 19th century"

More revisionism. If you trace from the beginning--even before the Constituttion--becoming a member of the confederation, and later, the union, was a compact with each other member and with the union. Part of that compact was remaining a member. And Lincoln thought secession was treason as soon as it happened. That was not something he made up post civil war.


"Most people.... North and South... didn't believe the Negro had a soul back then!" Assuming that's so--and I don't give a rap if if it is or not, what the fuck does white supremacist bullshit of ANY era have to do with whether secessionism is treason or not? That sounds a lot more like support for a "Northerners have no right to feel superior to Southerners" meme than anything else.

In fact, what does ANYthing in your post have to do with whether secession is treason or not? Do you really think you're the only Duer who thinks 1863 was different from 2010? Good grief.

[Tutonic]

32. Lets also declare April "Moron's Month"

Because Morons should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered." So much for Compassionate Conservatism.

[AlbertCat]

34. In VA every month is Confederate History Month! SC too.

You don't know what it's like being stuck between these two snotty states!

Let's hope they remember they LOST.


(don't get me wrong.... the Civil War is fascinating and important still in how things are today...but Cheesus! Learn SOMETHING from it!)

[BreweryYardRat]

35. "Confederate History Month..." when we've got a black president.

This is a poor attempt at an insult -- and it's going to backfire. BADLY.

[noiretextatique]

39. and they obviously resent black history month

and MLK day.

[AlbertCat]

41. This is a poor attempt at an insult

BINGO!


It's another lame GOP stunt!

[bongbong]

37. Another new holiday

How about "The North Kicked You Traitors' Asses Month"?

[Old Troop]

42. Why not just call it "traitor month"

[ThoughtCriminal]

43. April Fools!

Wait, they really did?

[caveat_imperator]

44. Maybe someone should print

posters of the painting of the surrender at Appomattox and label it "The Confederacy is History".

[No Elephants]

88. DUzy! Kudos.

Welcome to DU!

[Doctor_J]

45. And tomorow hate radio will be telling their zombies it's US who are

promoting division

[zonkers]

48. I invite an honest and civil re-examination of the civil war and its meaning.

[kwassa]

50. Virgina used to celebrate Lee-Jackson Day and MLK birthday together ...

being the psychically screwed up day possible.

Confederate generals and Martin Luther King.

[underpants]

101. Now they split them and state employees have a 4 day weekend

engineere mostly by Republicans who just LOVE THEM some state employees :sarcasm:

[Heywood J]

54. It's times like this that make me think we need laws like those

we drafted for the Germans at the end of WWII: forbidding the production, ownership, sale, publication, display, etc. of the swastika Confederate flag.

Over 600,000 people died to put an end to what constitutes the literal definition of treason and armed insurrection. Like many other governments rightly vilified, the Confederacy went to war against the remaining United States - we don't reward other countries for having done so.

[brooklynite]

55. Perhaps to be followed by "Old Testament Week"

Those stories of stoning homosexuals, selling your daughters into slavery and genocide against your neighbors should certainly be "studied, understood and remembered".....

[HipChick]

59. so...Is the month to remember how the Confederates got their ass kicked?

[Poll_Blind]

61. The only good thing to come out of the Confederacy is the Col. Angus sketch on SNL.

Just sayin'

PB

[VaYallaDawg]

82. What an embarrassment to our state this is.

This is the result of a request from a bunch of crackpots in southside Virginia who have been asking VA governors to recognize April as their "Confederate History Month" (or whatever they call it) for the past several administrations.

It is noteworthy that they have only succeeded in getting this request granted from the Republican Governors. The two previous Democratic govs (Warner and Kaine) took a lot of heat, but I was really proud of both of them to deny the request.

I know it's easy to generalize about all of us, but please, please believe me, not all Virginians are this backward and racist.

[No Elephants]

89. Anyone who says all Virginians are backward and racist is both a fool and an asshole.

Just my humble opinion.

Hayakawa was a GOP turd, but his book, Language in Thought and Action, is excellent, IMO. One sentence in it, in particular, has always stuck with me:

Cow 1 is not Cow 2.

Anyone who can't get that has a learning problem.

Anyone who truly gets that cannot lump all people of a group together and stick a label, negative or positive, on the entire group.

Similarly, Virginian 1 is not Virginian 2.



Of course, though, all bets are off when it comes to dissing Republicans at DU. Then, it's simply poetic license. ;-)

[No Elephants]

90. "Confederate History Month" translation:

1. We'd really like to celebrate the antebellum South, but we finally get celebrating that could cause us some p.r. problems, so, we're going with "Confederate History Month."


2. We think we've gone about as far as we can go in revising the history of the founding of this nation, so we're turning to the next biggest thorn in the side of RWers.

3. If you knew better, you'd give us a lot of credit: You just cannot imagine the torque required when religious folk celebrate rebellion, rather than obedience.

[muntrv]

94. Hey Bobby! Your beloved confederates were shooting at Stars & Stripes.

Isn't that treason?

[Paladin]

96. It's Really Pretty Simple.

To the degree you support this idiotic action in Virginia, to that degree you are an asshole......

[and-justice-for-all]

97. "Confederate History Month,"... F A I L

next thing you know they will want their slavery back.

[Jefferson23]

98. They disgust me beyond words. CNN's Roland Martin raked Brag Bowling

over the coals this evening...way to go Roland!