'Confederate History Month' Declared By Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

'Confederate History Month' Declared By Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

First Posted: 04- 6-10 03:29 PM | Updated: 04- 6-10 03:43 PM

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."

-snip

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


Courting the Af Am & Secessionist vote. What an asshole!

nt

They lost, that's their heritage.

is happy for supporting this creep in the election.

I do agree with Gov Assrabbit on one point, though, although I suspect the agreement is coincidental and he didn't really have Santayana in mind when he said history "should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered." And in this case, deplored. Right Gov? Right?

If the Democrats would field a strong Progressive, they'll get the Democratic vote. If they don't, they won't. It's that simple.

It's about being 'in your face' not pride or remembrance.

If it was those things they'd get their history right more along
the line of the Germans.

This unsustainable fantasy.

In the South:

Rich white guys: The industrial North is infringing on our slave economy. Wha-a-a-a-h!

Poor white guys: We like slavery despite the repression of our wages because we can say we are better than slaves and because of god and stuff.

John Brown: Let 'em all go!

White guys: hang him!

Media: We project Abraham Lincoln has won the presidency.

White guys: Oh Noes! We revolt!

Lincoln: You generals are really screwing up!

White guys: We lost. Noes!!!!

The North: Let's be friends, right after we steal from you.

White guys: Go fuck yourself.

Black guys: Now I am share cropper. Not much better.

:D

It started because of the idea of jury nullification and a state's ability to nullify an act of congress (mostly the latter).

Don't forget that when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation there were draft riots and riots and mass desertions.

...slavery was the ultimate cause. It was a struggle between the industrial North and the argarian, slave-supported South. Their economic systems were incompatible because of slavery. Their goals for Western expansion were incompatible because of slavery. The South's views on state sovereignty, especially on the issue of slavery, were incompatible with the Federal system. Whatever specific legal justification was used as a pretext, the purpose of the rebellion was to preserve slavery.

The war was fought over state's rights, whatever the pretext. I'm not glossing over the abomination that was(is) slavery, but the war was extremely much more broad than that. Read the newspapers of the day.

With respect, the newspapers of the day were about as well-informed as news media is today.

were allowed to enforce the congressional bills passed after the war than we would be 50 years ahead in civil rights. Just another good point in having a republic rather than a confederacy of states. Unless the republic is a fat swollen mass of corporate whores. :shrug:

There were many justifications made, but the ONLY ONE that would prompt the south to secede and start a war with the north was slavery.

There was NO other issue that would rally the troops, that any of them would think worth fighting and dying for.

The civil war in Kansas was not over tariffs state's rights or any other nonsense - it was about Kansas being a free state or a slave state. The red legs and bushwackers were fighting it out for years before Lincoln was elected.

It was always about slavery. Any suggestion otherwise is just re-writing history by fucking traitors.

The American Civil War (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States as well as several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America or CSA (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the United States (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.

In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming US administrations rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.

Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really
By Fredric Smoler



Was it just about slavery? A historian provides an answer.
A great many Americans still debate the origins of the Civil War in the same terms as a century or more ago. People say the war was not “about” slavery; it was about economics, or “states’ rights,” or elemental Southern nationalism. Those who insist that the war wasn’t about slavery tend to do so with the conviction that they are talking to naive and moralistic innocents. The historian Chandra Manning, who has met a lot of these people, has just published What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 350 pages, $26.95), and in it she investigates what the men who actually fought the war believed they were about.

She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

-snip
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20070503-civil-war-chandra-manning-slavery.shtml

Kind of like how WWII was really the War of Allied Aggression.

:crazy:

with a "Born to Lose" brand.
Still holds true today.

Germany's CDU Chancellor Angela Merkel has declared April to be "Nazi History Month," the first time in 65 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the Federal Republic.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/nazi-history-month_n_527363.html

Funny. The link is clearly wrong, but goes to the same article as the OP.

when i moved to the south i was amazed how much the civil war was still on folks minds....

a boost for Virginia's economy. This to me is like the celebration of the Lousiana purchase campaign. There is nothing wrong with holding true to our history, and the Civil War was a big part of that history. On the Other hand, you should not be holding up the Confederacy like a prize. To Celebrate the secession of Virginia from the Union falls into the later category. :thumbsdown:

When it comes to morality they run completely contrary to to most peoples concepts.