Va. Gov. McDonnell reinstates Confederate History Month

A fist bump to you. Well put.

that statement is actually the exact opposite of the truth.

That's my point, the swastika is a symbol of racial intolerance and evil in the same way the confederate flag is.

Read my reply to slarabee

i was going more on the point that the nazi flag is banned and looked at with shame in germany, while the southern flag is looked at in reverence and with pride in the south. so, i guess i took your comment wrong as well.

that's right, because shit floats....

Virginias 4 losers

hyperbole much?

I agree, and I live in the US.
It seems the US is always the slowest to evolve.

Those great generals you refer to were educated at West Point and there was a tremedous amount of respect between Union Generals and confederate Generals during the civil war who shared that common experience.

Indeed, too bad we can't say the same thing about governors. McDonell is a fool.

kudos up you go

Here you go, The CIvil War was about economics, not about freedom.

And it is your suggestion that slavery had nothing to do with the economy of the South? Listen, Lincoln campaigned on stopping the spread of slavery. The south didn't like that too much so they seceded. What part of that does not involve slavery?

everyone else gets a month or week, why not rednecks?

Then let them celebrate "redneck month", but the "Confederate History Month" is a celebration of a contemptible period in American history.

i doubt they know the difference

The southern states were strongly democratic until the passage of civil rights legislation.
The republican southern stratagy was a brilliant stroke of genius. It maginalized the demorats for years. This past Presidential election was the first real break in the stranglehold the GOP has had in the south for over 45 years. And it was because the blacks who were so a apathetic saw hope in Barak Obama and came out to vote.

Lincoln's Party? Yep. Actually 'dems and 'pubes were both part of the same party, then split and switched roles. Before Franklin Roosevelts presidency and the conservative coalition, Republicans' platform included liberalism, non-interventionism (foreign policy) and progressivism too.
'And the times, they are-a changin' -- Indeed

Because you selectively remember it not as treason. The sins of the south are manifest!

oh shit you caught me that was me

are you advocating the erasure of history? you sound like a fascist to me

nice change up

Because in your remembrance of history, you greatly downplay your transgressions.

Remembering it and celebrating it are two different things.

Germany should always remember Nazism, but that does not make it something to be proud of.

The South should always remember slavery, but that does not make it something to be proud of.

so not true.... of all the people who reported as Black in Census 2000, 54 percent lived in the South, 19 percent lived in the Midwest, 18 percent lived in the Northeast and 10 percent lived in the West.

... but were they happy?

I did not see a checkbox on my census form for happiness, or indicating which state I would rather live in.

If I had the money, I would pack up and move out of the south in a heartbeat.

you better have a skill/talent or perviously rich parents. Cause if not you're fucked, say hello to bills, credit, and insurance bullshit, your hard work doesn't pay off anymore

so what's next nazi history month, communist history month. you know what let's just have a history month for all history, good or bad. I propose kkk-neo nazi month, because they have some history we can all appreciate, good or bad, because it's all just the truth

I take you on seaside hike and you jump off a cliff, good on you mate!!

That level of maturity makes your argument all the more valid.

that threat isn't even coherent.

There is a difference between teaching about a period in history and celebrating it.

No one ever said that people should not be taught about the Confederacy.

It is just not a reason to have a parade.

The problem was that political representation practically didn't exist in the South at that time.

Secession was not a popular movement but an elitist one, perpetrated by elected officials who had no connection to the vast majority of people.

Poor Southerners couldn't vote either, that was true for a very long time.

To the people who initiated secession, the war was about the expansion of slavery. Slaveowners were convinced that if they didn't expand into the new states entirely, their organization would fade away.

The main issue the South was worried applied to "States Rights" was the question of slavery. White southerners also took up the cause of "States Rights" in the period following reconstruction using it to bar civil rights legislation. This was also the primary justification for the use of the filibuster. The truth is that racial animus and slavery are behind door number one, door number two, and door number three. It was an economic system that touched all aspects of polite southern society. It maintained the air of gentility on the backs of others. Its repugnant, and attempting to distance themselves from that shameful history is inexcusable. The South has been allowed to live in this pseudo historic reality where the unfortunate aspects of its inequities are put aside for southern hospitality.

I come from a southern family. We had slaves. When we freed them and sided with the North my families plantation on the border with Tennessee was targeted and burned to the ground by Confederates. In fact they razed the bulk of it and other towns to the ground in an aggressive campaign of terror near the beginning of the war.

The south also has the history of the expulsion of Native tribes. The racist State Government of Virginia today still denies them status. And the White Southerner Andrew Jackson is responsible for American concentration camps and the abominable trail of tears. So it isn't even one group of people who were the object of racism. While its not entirely relegated to the south it was southern politics that drove and defined the brutal policies of this nation with men like Andrew Jackson.

The south can never be absolved only damned! Their wrists are bound in shackles for all time. Their hands red with blood.

I agree... we must study our history and learn from our mistakes. You can just pretend the war did not happen. In a purely educational sense I fully support this idea. I would look at it like black history month.

exactly.

american principles support the idea that one can hold racist beliefs, SO LONG as they do not act harmfully because of their racist beliefs--or in a job that receives gov. funding--prejudicially deny citizens work.

but the question of if we need a confederate history month is different altogether.

How about how the war was fought? The war was clearly economic and had very little to do with slaves being freed, that was more of a punishment to the South for trying to secede.

Thank you for raising awareness about this case ... I never knew before, and will never forget, now.

Agreed with derk, however... what, exactly, does this have to do with the article? That horrific incidence took place in Arkansas, which, yes, was a Confederate state, but I think this is trying to detract from the point. Confederate History Month can be more than about slave-owning and the mistreatment of blacks. Couldn't it also be about addressing their grievances? Also, like many people have said, at the time slavery was widespread and there were some in the South who wanted to end it, as well, but state's rights took precedence -at the time-, -contextually-. Denying this just seems to show that people want to pretend like something just didn't happen, instead of acknowledging it, fully understanding with it, and dealing with it. If it's approached from a neutral, historical, educational point of view, I don't see what the problem is.

Whether or not it would stay that way is entirely a different issue. I know great parts of the south still have pockets of racist and backwards behavior (I live in Oklahoma, I know, haha). People mind use it as an excuse to whip up into racism. However, these people would likely do it anyway. I don't know exactly how this would affect people because I don't live in Virginia. I think that's an answer that could only be given by them.

It is a shame, except this isn't a story about healthcare.

When someone puts up a Confederate flag for "Confederate History Month," they've officially crossed the line. There is nothing rational about that decision, they've made their intention as clear as day.

To work with your narrative, it would be like someone putting up the flag of the U.S.S.R. and declaring "Soviet History Month." It'd be pretty clear what they were trying to do.

You'll be glad to know that, at least at the university level, it is taught. We read an entire book about Confederate life on the homefront.

That being said, I did make my judgment. And I posted it right below if you wanna read it.

I could tell from the way you wrote that comment that you haven't studied it very well.

The Emancipation Proclamation came in the middle of the war as a tool for war. The Civil Yes, the war was not initially about freeing the slaves, that became a war aim later on as hatred of the south began to intensify.

But it was -about- slavery, namely its expansion to other territories. It was about the irreconcilability between the Southern Slave Society and Northern Industrial Capitalism and the fight over the Southern One-Party State and Real American Democracy.

Plus Lincoln died before he could institute Reconstruction. Johnson fucked it up because he was a Southern sympathizer and Grant couldn't overcome the tremendous violence wrought by the KKK because of his commitment to rule of law. Hayes ended Reconstruction prematurely with a political deal. SO no, it really wasn't because Lincoln that Civil Rights wouldn't come until 100 years later.

And you're a moron for thinking that that the Civil War stripped rights from all Americans, it GAVE us our freedom via the 14th AMENDMENT!

Prior to that, THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT APPLY TO STATES.

There was no freedom of speech, there was no freedom of religion, there was no right to trial by jury of your peers, NOTHING, until the 14th amendment allowed the Supreme Court to EXTEND those rights TO THE STATES.

It didn't give women freedom. And they gave black men the vote to get votes, not because they cared about them having freedom.

My textbook in high school history painted a VERY different picture from other accounts that I've read. It spoke of taxation, and external influence from northern states for years prior to the war. The growing conflict over slavery was what finally triggered the war, and became the war's justification, but was not the ultimate cause.

From the way I understand it, the states' rights were their own and the Federal government was small and existed to facilitate agreements between states. Prior to the Civil War a state's rights superseded federal rights. That's the nation that the founding fathers had envisioned, and I happen to agree with them. I would hope that slavery would have been abolished anyway, but I can't say for certain that it would have been. After the supposed abolition of slavery many people, now supposedly free, worked the same land, lived in the same conditions, and had no civil rights. Sharecropping was slavery thinly veiled.

Thanks for calling me a moron. It makes me feel justified when a person can't simply argue their point of view without name calling.

And you'd know right? Having never studied the literature nor having read what these people said? You just murdered history with your own bias.

Your cynicism is baseless and therefore unwarranted. I dismiss it outright.

I believe if you do some research on the subject you'll find that Jan is right. Black men were dissuaded from voting, often through violence, but were being counted as citizens thereby giving southern states more representatives in congress. Their voices were not heard. Also, history tends to be penned by the winners, and often times the actual events and motivations are not accurately represented. It's best to consult multiple sources before coming to a conclusion, and also to understand that the conclusions to which you come are theories, not facts.

Oh wow, who would've thunk it? An inaccurate high school textbook. That's never happened before.

Given the recent revisions by the Texas schoolboard of education, maybe you should consider how whitewashed high school textbooks are of knowledge that would "offend" the American people.

There was no external influence over Southern States with the exception of the tariff, which had always been a hot button Republican issue.

The South had tremendous influence over the Federal Government since, at that time, there was no election of Senators and the 3/5's clause allowed slaveowners representation well beyond their actual voting populace. They had deep captured the congress, the Supreme Court and usually the Presidency.

Prior to the civil war states' rights did NOT supersede the Federal Government. Nullification had been attempted as early as John Adam's presidency and had been ruled unconstitutional.

There is no such thing as "the Founding Father's vision," those men agreed on PRACTICALLY NOTHING. The Constitution represents a BITTER COMPROMISE between about 40 people who all had varying visions of the New Republic that none of them managed to carry out. And had they lived to see the Civil War, they would undoubtedly have a different opinion than they did in the early 1800's when they died.

Slavery, being an essential part of Southern Society, would NOT have faded away. Confederate leaders talked OPENLY about a SLAVE EMPIRE extending all the way to Latin America. These men wanted to expand slavery, it was not going to fade away.

The failure to bring rights and economic opportunity to newly freed slaves is the tragedy of Reconstruction. But it's not because the North didn't care that this happened, it's because well-placed Southern opposition -prevented- it as I already explained earlier.

And I feel perfectly justified calling you a moron since you're attempting to argue a case you know NOTHING about beyond your high school education! And then you have the gall to act offended and argue further even after I've presented contradicting evidence.

I wouldn't post in a thread about plane engineering arguing a case since I've never studied the subject. So why do you feel it sensible to make a contentious case for the Civil War which -you've never even attempted to study outside the twenty pages your high school textbook had-.

You just muddled the entire issue by equating Southern violence against them with the Northern men who freed them.

Southern violence -ended- the attempt to bring the black population up. They murdered people black people elected to political office, members of the Freedmen's Bureau and their greatest advocate Abraham Lincoln.

In Louisiana, for instance, when the public learned that black people were present at the drafting of the state's new constitution after the Civil War, an angry mob descended on the meeting place and murdered everyone there before Federal troops could arrive to stop them.

Plus, black people had been counted as a population for representation even when they were slaves, that's what gave slaveowners disproportionate power in Congress. That wasn't new.

And I don't need a lecture on how to practice history, I'm a historian.

You dismss what? The fact that women didn't get the right to vote until almost 52 years after this? Even after toning down the suffrage movment out of respect for the war? That black men got the vote to give more votes to those who claimed to "free" them? That the tradition of voter disenfranchisement dates back to just after the Civil War as well when Southern conservatives adopted an array of voting barriers including literacy and property tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses on order to stop them from voting? That's freedom? You think politics wasn't involved in giving black men the vote and then trying to stop them from doing so? I don't know what history books you read, but your arrogance and namecalling speaks volumes about your so called knowledge and I therefore then dismiss you.

I dismiss your baseless claim to political ploys.

The people who passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments fucking cared a lot about ensuring Civil Rights for black people. It was not a political maneuver because it was -vastly fucking unpopular- and was -overturned by Southern violence and elections-.

That pretty much makes you a cynical asshole since you didn't know that, didn't attempt to learn that and -still asserted your point anyway-.

And women weren't given the right to vote because -no society on planet fucking Earth felt that way yet-. New Zealand, the first country to give Women's Suffrrage, did so in -1893-. A full 32 years after the period in time that we're talking about.

Plus, certain states allowed Women's Suffrage. It's not like it didn't exist. Not that it's relevant.

You're talking about an era in time where -marrying for love- was still taboo, when not having your family in order meant you weren't going to be elected President. The Feminist Revolutions would play themselves out in the 1880's and 90's amidst massive contention and social unrest.

Of course, you knew how much about this before you posted? Did you intentionally remove the context or were you just so clueless that you thought people really were that forward thinking in 18-fucking-65?

Who's the arrogant one here? Asserting an ideology on the past that -did not exist yet-?

You might as well attack Medieval Peasants for not rising up and starting a Republic.

"cynical asshole"

Real nice. I would call you a name back, but I unlike you have class.

I studied American History in College as well, and my professor was fond of bringing forth contrasting points of view from various textbooks.

What does it take to be a historian? Contention and a caps lock key?

Ok you hooked me why did your professor say the civil war was fought?
Now remember college professors are like any other profession there are great, good, mediocre, and bad.

I read 8 books and dozens of pdf's worth of primary sources. Trust me, I got plenty of contrast.

I can post the Mudsill speech if you really need to hear from the horse's mouth what Confederate intentions were.

Unlike me, you have no facts, so you have nothing more to say.

Not surprising, you're that way with every issue. Even Vierotchka and J_Jammer are more flexible.

I'll see if I can find the titles of my old texts so you can read them yourself. Roughly it was stated as being due to economic reasons. The south was primarily agricultural, while the north was more industrial. There was a large gap in the prosperity between the two regions because of these fundamental differences. Slavery was almost played out prior to the civil war, but it was reignited as a means of cheap labor to cultivate cotton. The other reason was states rights. As I recall the south felt undue influence from the north, feeling they had rights to govern themselves. Much of this dispute is attributed to slavery, but my understanding was that it was more general and fiscal in nature. Slavery was just one of many prominent disputes, albeit one that tipped the scales, that had arisen prior to the civil war. In the infancy of US history slavery was practiced almost equally in the north and south, but faded more quickly in the north. I think that if you trace back to when slavery began to gain momentum in the south you'll see that a rift had already started to form then, and that the civil war's ultimate causes lie in that original schism. I'm not too sure on that last bit, but I seem to vaguely recall that being the case. I've ignited my own interest on this subject and plan to do further research into this.

you need to pull your head out your ass...

Good for you. Although I have to warn you, the literature could literally fill libraries on its own. I think there's something like a book released every ten days about Abraham Lincoln, it gets a little absurd.

I've heard that "Battlecry of Freedom" is pretty good, but I've not read that one myself.

Your characterization of the conflict I think is too easily handed on the Confederacy. I think the best way to understand why the war happened is to look at one thing and one thing only, secession.

Secession IS the reason that the Civil War happened, all initial war aims was just to end the rebellion. In fact, had the South not seceded, they could have kept slavery because Lincoln EXPLICITLY said that he -would not- violate their right to own slaves. He says this right up to the Emancipation Proclamation, which he presents as only being a necessary part of the war.

Realize that nothing was -done- to the South to make them secede. Lincoln wasn't even in office yet when they seceded and he had promised no Federal intervention into Southern policy.

As much as the rhetoric claims that the North was encroaching on them, the North believed in state's rights to a stronger extent than the South did. It's why they never did anything about slavery all that time.

All Northern newspapers at the time treat abolitionism as a contemptible ideology equivalent to how most Americans feel about socialism today.

The South was convinced that if that they did not expand slavery, it would eventually be abolished. And they were OBSESSED with slavery and willing to do anything to defend it. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of this.

It is true that the war had a lot to do with agricultural vs industrial societies, but that is something that needs a bit more description to understand. It was about a slave society versus a rapacious, self-devouring capitalist society.

Make no mistake, the North's economic system was -fucked up-. Early industrial capitalism had MASSIVE corruption problems that would define the post-Civil war right up to Teddy Roosevelt.

But the South's economic system was not "agricultural," it was a slave society. Slavery was built into the public order, it was an obsessive fixation on the necessity of keeping black people "in their place." Everyone was racist in that period of time, but Southern racism was especially intense to an extent that is somewhat unimaginable to modern Americans.

People that think that slavery was justified because of southern racism, but it was more like southern racism was justified by slavery. The south literally felt that they HAD to keep slaves and that it was a good thing that God was commanding them to do. It's a little disturbing to read about.

Anyway, this post is too long so I'll let you make up your own mind.

Now the founding fathers found slavery repugnent, its was a concession to the southern states that the slavery did not end with the Bill of rights. That is a fact. The simmering of that dispute lived for another hundred years. The economic differences that the north was industrial while the south was an agricultural base using slave labor. Slavery was a mitigating factor that caused the war not necessarly the start but the over the top as you said yourself. But from the very begining in the new country that would be the United States, those northern representitives wanted to end slavery then so indeed it was one of the primary reasons the war was fought, And the reason the south wanted to be its own country. Furthermore the south could have never survived without any real industrial base.

One of the reasons the Founding Fathers fought a war with the British to keep slavery going, Britain must have seen it unfair to have to complete globally with a slave owning nation making more profit by paying no wages.

This isn't supposed to be a place where you have to write a dissertation every time you respond. Your penchant for thinking your shit is ice cream here is unappealing. I won't be responding to you again, nor your posse who votes down legitimate comments. It is always the same brood that comes in these threads to show they know more than anyone about everything. You don't want to discuss you want to steamroll over people because I suppose for some reason it makes you feel superior, and in my case because I whipped your ass in a few previous threads on GMOS. So be it. Have at it here since you have the time and like being star of the show. Anytime you want a discussion on the environment without the egomaniac dramatics dare to come into one of my threads where it seems you are scarce for all of your tough know it all talk. The fact remains that your above comment wherein you claimed ALL had FREEDOM as a result of the Civil War was erroneous.