What do you think of VA Gov. McDonnell's Confederate History Month
 

VA Gov. McDonnell recent decision to make April "Confederate History Month" has caused quite a stir. The cause of the dust-up is that he did not mention slavery when calling for Virginia citizens to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War." Was this deliberately racist, stupid, cynical or OK?

I vote for it being a cynical attempt to rally the right wing base in the Old Dominion.

It's just the southern right showing their ass, and longing for bygone days. When lazy white men could sit out on the veranda sipping Mint Julips and watching some one else do all of their work for them. And collect all of the money for themselves of course. Then maybe sneak off after the missus done gone ta sleep, for a little midnight fun.........:rolleyes:

Let's see, Virginia has gone red again and I'm still waitnig for my taxes to go down..................do,do,do,do, hmmmm, hmmm,hmmm. Well, looks like it aint gonna happen..again. Instead they cut education money again. After all, the ignorant are more easily controlled dontcha know....:rolleyes:

Dave

When is Apartheid Appreciation day? Third Reich Rememberance week?

From what I've seen a lot of Southern folks take their past seriously - they are proud to be 'rebels', and I don't think most of them mean slaveowners.

Understandably the black folks see it just a slight bit differently and whites folks would do well to consider that (as black folks should think about pride in history regarding the white folks).

And of course the Governor is a politician. But a Southern man can't mention any consideration for being a rebel and a southerner without being pilloried. Honor, duty, courage.

Pete

As an American Indian, I might say, "right after the 4th of July."

But it's not actually that simple. :D

Reality is that the victors write the history books. Why are folks mad because slavery wasn't mentioned? Because somebody, somewhere, hasn't gotten over it, yet.

Hey, I'm the first to tell you that we Natives got screwed, Custer had it coming and Andrew Jackson can rot in Hell: but the Federal government is no longer the reason that many of my brethren are social and economic pariahs.

That's their fault.

When the lot of apologist black -- and white -- folks assume responsibility for their own lot, they won't internalize omitting something, by which they continue to define themselves, in a state-level proclamation.

Because, you know, it won't matter. :rolleyes:

The Third Reich did a lot of great things too! We never would have gotten to the Moon without their work. Not to mention advances in physics- they discovered a lot of stuff. But a German can't take a little pride in that part of his history without someone getting all bent out of shape about them killing a few million Jews.

I get what you're trying to say Pete, but sometimes one thing casts a shadow so long it darkens everying. I'd say the enslavement of human beings for financial gain falls into that category. Most Germans didn't kill Jews either, but tell someone you want to celebrate the accomplishments of the Third Reich and I'm guessing you'll run into a touch of opposition. Probably won't help much when you explain "no, only the good things".

Lincoln considered, rightfully, that the sin of slavery was Americas' sin, not just the Souths'. Therefore (as the levelheaded Zeke points out) celebrating the 4th could mean the same thing to many, therefore following that reasoning the same as the Reich.

Pete

What's interesting is how confused much of the South is about their own history (disclaimer - I've only lived in the South - Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, Maryland (not exactly South, but close enough)). Heck, you can travel through West Virginia and see the Stars and Bars flown proudly on cars and in yards despite the fact that the Union state of WV was created when western Virginia seceded from Confederate Virginia in 1863.

Then the whole argument about keeping the Stars and Bars part of the state flags in some southern states. Hell, in GA it wasn't part of the state flag until 1955 in reaction to the rollback of Jim Crow laws in the 1950's.

The people in the South are really proud of their history/heritage, but they're not exactly sure why - a misfounded patriotism for the lost cause?

The whole issue has become purely political. Besides, the War's been over for near 150 yrs.

If the Governor of Virginia wants to proclaim a Confederate History Month, that's fine by me. When Virginia gets a Democratic Governor who wants to abolish the Confederate History Month, that's fine by me as well.

What I advocate is to drop the whole issue. The sins of the past are past. I say dry up and let the other guy do his thing.

You may not like it, but it's really no big deal. Don't people have REAL problems anymore?

Chas

I feel much the same as you other than the fact that I think I was a cynical ploy by the Governor to keep the base fired up. It's hard to let it fade into history if one deliberately stirs the pot.

BTW, I have a couple good friends who live in the Shenandoah Valley (Strasburg) with roots that go very deep. They have portraits of Confederate generals/officers throughout their house and speak of the Civil War (oops, War of Northern Aggression) as if it were yesterday. I guess I just don't get it.:confused:

You betcha, but things like this are designed to get their minds off the real problems and instead spend (waste) time throwing brickbats.:rolleyes:

You weren't active here the last time we went through this.

One of my best friends, an attorney, also a member of the SCV, has his office decorated as such. Mother's maiden name was Lee, for what it's worth. I have also seen him stand up amongst the peckerwoods and announce that MLK was one of the greatest Americans who ever lived.

I would say more due to the over application of Dutch Courage than to a calculated political move on his part.

Perhaps an enigma to you, but not so to me. He feels a deep respect for his ancestors, and also his heritage. A respect for those who fought and sacrificed for what they considered to be right.

What happened 150 years ago wasn't completely right, or completely wrong, it was simply the way things were 150 years ago. We all see the world through our own eyes, which gives even the most objective of us a myopic view of things.

Myself, if they ain't botherin' me, I don't want to give 'em a reason to.

Chas

I won't go into when the Democrats had the Stars and Bars removed from the Old Confederate's Home ( funded and built by the Daughters of the Confederacy) here in Missouri, which was no more that political cover for Dick Gebbart. And then armed the Park Rangers during a Confederate ceremony at the OCH, just in case there was trouble.

MY friend, a STAUNCH Democrat, was so incensed that he was ready to go get the Navy Colt's down from the mantle, and ride into them with the reigns in his mouth. And to tell the truth, so was I.

Two sides to this coin.

That's it in a nutshell. The amazing thing is, people never quit falling for it.

Chas

Hear, Hear!

Chas smacks the nail right on the head once again.

Dave

I have an ancestor that left Western Virginia, and fled to Ohio with his family to join the Union Army when the war broke out. He was a Methodist Minister and an ardent and outspoken abolishionist. He was known for his firey speeches, and his ruthlessness. I saw an old newspaper article in which he claimed he truly believed he was "......doing Gods work upon the field of battle.".

I made the mistake of telling someone this once and got the reply; "So not only are you a goddamn Yankee, but you're great-grand daddy was a goddamned traitor as well?!"

Some people just can't let go, I guess.

Dave

Ya know, thinking can be dangerous.

I think all of us agree that slavery is morally wrong. I was just struck by the quote from your ancestor that he was "doing God's work upon the field of battle." I am trying to put that quote in perspective in light of our recent thread about religious extremism, the stories about the arrests of the religious militia, and my repeated concern about the "oath-keepers." Are we more tolerant of mixing religion and politics when we agree with the beliefs or aims of those expressing religious motivation for their acts? (For example, the prominent role that black churches played in the civil right movement) If what people are doing is just in our eyes, do we need to be concerned with their motivation?

At this point I don't pretend to offer any answers - just food for thought. Indeed, I need to question my earlier statement that I wanted to "reclaim the meaning of Christianity from the religious right." While that might be a socially or religiously important goal, I now question it's value as a political goal. :confused:

P.S. Not picking on your ancestor, Dave. This is really more a matter of questioning myself.

Regards,

D-Ray

In the course of searching for ancestors I discovered a distant cousin, same name as me, who fought on the Union side in the civil war. Also all the easern families of the same surname as myself (though I believe they all came from a different part of England and they added an e to the end of their name, summat like the Smiths who spell it Smyth) and many of them were slave owners. I hold no brief for either side as I don't see that much of a moral difference between a slave owner and a carpet bagger.

It seems McDonnell stepped in it again. This time, he's talking about requiring felons who have completed their sentences to write a letter making the case that they have contributed adequately to society since their release before they regain the right to vote (a right that 48 states and DC restore immediately after a sentence is fulfilled). Then the state will apply some arbitrary standard to decide whether the essay is good enough. This smacks of a Jim Crow literacy test and has people up in arms again in the Old Dominion.

You cannot be serious...

"carpetbaggers were seen as insidious Northern outsiders with questionable objectives meddling in local politics, buying up plantations at fire-sale prices, taking advantage of poor Southerners and pushing their alien Northern ways on Southern politics."

To wit, "questionable objectives."

Wow. That's equal to slavery... :rolleyes:

I'm forced to disagree on this one...

That makes the previous celebration of the Confederacy a bit more relevant. Is he up for reelection this November, and is the right wing that much in control of VA politics? Does he face a primary challenge from the right? How cynical are we?

Regards,

D-Ray

I would say that the carpetbaggers practices were lower than "questionable objectives" but it's hard to get much lower than slavery. Gotta go with Zeke on this one.

Regards,

D-Ray

Rotflmao! You should've laughed at him.

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored...

Pete

He was just elected in November when the Dem's put up a particularly weak candidate (Creigh Deeds). BTW, he ran as a "moderate" even though he got his law degree from Regent University (Pat Robertson's school).

During the campaign, his thesis at Regent came under fire because it outlined a controversial 15-point conservative agenda. In his thesis, McDonnell wrote "government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'" McDonnell also "described working women and feminists as 'detrimental' to the family." He criticized a 1965 Supreme Court decision which legalized the use of contraceptives and wrote that "man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter."

He somehow seems to have convinced the Virginia voter (particularly those who lean Democratic from Northern Virginia, Richmond and Tidewater) that he had changed his stripes in favor of moderation. Not so, it seems.

The carpetbaggers simply went down south to steal everything they could get their hands on, it was not buying up plantations at fire sale prices (that is not different than those that buy foreclosed properties today) but they resorted to every rotten scheme in the book, and some that were not in the book.

Not all slave owners were as nasty as those protrayed in fiction, in fact if you were to visit Williamsburg in VA you would see that although slave quarters look bloody miserable by todays standards, the homes of the poor whites were no better.

Who is worse, the Arabs who rounded up the blacks in Africa, the ship owners who brought them over here, or the people that bought them? Considering the sad lot that the workers in the northern mills had one might think that those that railed against slavery were just a tad sanctimonious.

No man has a right to own another human being, but there are degrees of ownership.

And I'm certain a great many of Confederate soldiers felt they were "doing Gods work upon the field of battle" as well.

To me, it only demonstrates how religion is used to motivate people, even to become bloodthirsty killers. (9/11 comes to mind.)

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. And when you are fighting what you perceive as evil, are you not "doing Gods work"?

Dave

Regent University---two miles down the road. I've met some real gems from that place. Trust me, even if you are a staunch Republican, you DON'T want these people running your country. If you think Obama is bad, you aint seen nuthin' yet.......................

Dave

I would suggest that anyone who purchased a slave was a co-conspirator with all of the people involved in the slave trade.

No doubt the "Captains of Industry" who exploited the workers had their own sins to atone for, but the workers were not taken to the sweatshops in chains.

Regards,

D-Ray

As I said, it is not at all clear whether we can ignore the motives of those intent on restraining liberty. Perhaps a look at their "philosophy" gives us some clue what to expect in conduct of those in positions of authority, but in the end, it is a restraint on liberty, no matter the motivation.

Regards,

D-Ray

Really? You can swallow a rationalization of slavery?

How, precisely, do you reconcile the absolutism of "No man" and the quantification of "degree?"

I can't. :mad:

Here, Here !! We're ALL "owned" by the Federal gov't, the local gov't, and/or the local bank you have yr mortgage with...Just don't pay yr taxes or miss a few payments & you'll find out just how "Free" you really are...

Agreed, well said.

Pete

Let me try and make this clearer, you can own a man and put him in chains - not that he will get a lot of work done that way.

You can own a man by underpaying him to work in your sweatshop. When the choice is sweatshop A or sweatshop B, he is still a slave.

My Father was in the wollen mills at age twelve. Later his uncle got him into the glassworks. As soon as he could he emigrated to Canada, educated himself and went on to better things. I doubt that the owners of the woolen mills lost much sleep over the children in their mills. I also doubt that any of them ever read Elizabeth Barrett Browning's "The Children."

No one forced the plantation owners to buy slaves, just like today no one forces companies to hire illegals. The plantation owners wanted to harvest indigo but the wetlands were infested leading to a short life span, slaves were cheaper than paying good wages.

Am I justifying the practice as you seem to wish to believe? No, like Gouvernor Morris said at the Philadelphia Convenvention "Slavery is an abomination before God." All I am attmpting to show is that it takes many forms and all are based in greed.

I even insisted that the celebrant not use any reference to 'obey' in our wedding ceremony. Think back to how such a short time ago that a woman became property after marriage.

Sorry guys. I don't even understand what you're trying to say anymore.

The requirement by the Federal Government that you actually pay taxes is equal to slavery? I'm trying, but I can't follow this at all.

Yeah, if you don't pay your taxes you're gonna get in trouble. They may even take your liberty for a time. But they won't take you away from your family forever with no means of ever being reunited. They won't beat you. They won't force you to work your entire life entirely for their benefit.

And by the way, when I say "they", of course I mean "us" since we ARE the power in a democracy. No one has any authority to make laws that we didn't collectively put in place. And why single out tax laws? Your case could be equally made against any law.

Just try and kill a guy & you'll find out just how "Free" you really are. Just beat your wife & you'll find out just how "Free" you really are. Just take a gun and hold up a liquor store & you'll find out just how "Free" you really are.

I'm still a big fan of law and order. Once again, I'll suggest that we have more liberty than just about any people on Earth. And yet there are so many here complaining that it's not enough. Much more and we're living in anarchy. Personally I'm glad that we aren't free to run around killing people or stealing property. And yeah, if we're going to agree together that we're going to be civilized and have laws then we're going to have to support the institution of government and fund it's expenses.

I respect yr opinion, as always, Ed, but as one who's sort of been on the Receiving End of the IRS' Tender Mercies, I have to disagree..My granmother was posthumously RAPED by those bilious bastards, they got something like 87% of everything she had...And this was after we'd had very expensive legal advice on "Estate Planning"...

Had one of those estate planners in here a few years back, just another form of thievery IMHO. I suppose there are honest ones but they are awfully thin on the ground.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't blame the IRS for enforcing the laws that Congress and the President passes. I personally think that a lot of the ire that is focused on the IRS is misdirected. They're just the messenger. Our tax code is an abomination and the IRS isn't to blame for it.

And we have no one to blame for any of our laws but ourselves. Every single person who makes our laws was elected by us. We have no King. We don't have to like how things are, but to build up the false enemy of 'the government' is not productive. I don't much like 55 mph zones, but there they are and there doesn't seem to be enough opposition to them to change things. So that's how it is. I don't like it, but I'm not crying about how I have no liberty.

Nor am I. I'm just trying to give credit where credit is due for the sorry state of our tax laws. I find it quite disingenuous when I hear congressmen (generally GOP) rag on the IRS, when all the agency is doing is enforcing the mess that the Congress itself created.

"Ve vere only follovink Orders..."

Collecting tax revenue in accordance with the law and gassing people ain't exactly the same, methinks.;)