It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[Louis VI the Fat]

April, the cruellest of months, has been (re-)declared Confederate History Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

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, 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.

Confederate history will rise again!

What is, in your opinion, the history of the Confederacy? A misunderstood struggle for state's rights? Or the most un-American act in the history of the US, four years of shame?
Is the confederate flag an object of regional pride? Or the Swastika of the US, an affront to good taste?


Next year will mark the 150th birthday of the outbreak of the Civil War. It will attract a lot of attention, not least of which in Virginia. This coming year then, leading up to the 150th, will be of much importance for deciding how the Civil War will be commemorated / condemned / remembered / celebrated. It's history is not yet relegated to the dusty study room, but remains an object of much contention in contemporary politics.

[PanzerJaeger]

Although I wasn't born in America, I have a lot of sympathy for the Confederacy and for Confederate soldiers particularly. Despite the current politically correct, revisionist environment that paints the war as a battle over slavery, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave. Slavery itself was a state's rights issue, and trying to separate the two does a disservice to the complex political undertones of the era.

In any event, they were excellent soldiers who fought for principled leaders and a noble cause. Their loss led the United States down, in my opinion, a regrettable path towards centralization of power in the federal government that was directly contradictory to the principles in which the nation was founded.

As an American, I have no problem reconciling the celebration of their battlefield successes and the unique antebellum society they cultivated with the injustices of slavery. Those who cannot usually stand to profit from their objections. The controversy over the confederate battle flag is a good example.

[Kagemusha]

I dont know much about confederacy other then military aspects concerning civil war. Looking at the military personel.It would seem that many of them really thought that they had casus belli to fight Union as they felt that they were first citizens of their home states and only after it citizens of United states of America.If the Union were to invade their states. They felt they had the moral obligation to defend themselves and their state. To me the whole talk about values and justifications of the war boils down to the point if member states of the United states had right of secession from the federal state.

[Lord Winter]

The lead up to the civil war is a testament to the dangers of staying with an outdated economic system. While I can certainly see, and to a certain extent sympathize, with the south's cause, they have no one to blame but themselves for arriving there.

[gaelic cowboy]

Despite the current politically correct, revisionist environment that paints the war as a battle over slavery, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave. Slavery itself was a state's rights issue, and trying to separate the two does a disservice to the complex political undertones of the era.

So the South fought to protect the rights of a small elite to continue slavery thats hardly noble in fact it makes it worse cause most the people never owned a slave and they still ended up killed.

In my view most the revisionism is on the confederette side I shudder to think of the consequences for the world in later years if the south won thankfully we never had to find out

[The Lurker Below]

This announcement was nothing more than publicity. Next year is the big anniversary and they want you to start planning your vacations now so you can come celebrate with them, don't forget to bring your credit card. Politicians only care as much about history, any history, that it will garner votes for them.

Something to consider though. Regardless of whether you view the thing as shameful or rightous, what have you, remember that in addition to going through a rebellion, the country also went through a major revolution. The way life was lived afterwards was greatly different in both the north and south. Culturally, economicially, and politically.

[drone]

As a resident of Virginia, Southerner by birth, and direct blood descendant of a signee to the South Carolina declaration of secession, I would just like to say: Some people have got to let things go. The South started the war, and the South lost it. I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and I understand the economic and social realities federal abolition would have wrought in the South, but it still doesn't change the fact that slavery was the root cause.

The governor's statement is not really that surprising. Up until 10 years ago, Virginia still had this as a state holiday.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, I think the North should've let them go without violence, as I am opposed to the increase of centralized federal power. However, I'm also glad that the war ended up ruining lots of Southern gentlemen. My blood boils at the thought of those smug aristocrats, combined with them holding human beings in chattel slavery.

Fun fact: there were upwards of 100,000 southern whites who enlisted in Union regiments (not counting more in irregular units or militia), and every Confederate state except for South Carolina mustered regiments for the Union Army.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.

Genius.

[The Lurker Below]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.

Considering the original was mostly the plan of Virginians, and that the federal government was dominated by southerners right up till 1860 when the Republicans won, why would they change it? The southerners of 1860 should be criticized for bailing out as soon as they no longer dominated the national debate, but not for taking with them what they had created to begin with.

[TinCow]

I'm a Virginia resident (though a carpetbagger, not a 'Virginian') and an amateur historian. Personally, I do agree that the sacrifices of Confederate soldiers are too often overlooked in this country. The vast majority fought for their country with good faith and good intentions. Their sacrifices deserve to be honored and remembered. At the same time, the Civil War cannot be taught without a discussion of slavery. To do otherwise is to actively misinterpret history and is akin to teaching WW2 without a discussion of the Holocaust, or the conquest of the Americas without a discussion of the genocide of the native peoples. Thus McDonnell is on solid group in promoting Confederate History Month, but he deserves all the muck thrown his way for ignoring the issue of slavery in his original statement.

Those who distort history for political ends do an immense disservice to human civilization, and actively promote misunderstanding and division, rather then education and peaceful reconciliation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Considering the original was mostly the plan of Virginians, and that the federal government was dominated by southerners right up till 1860 when the Republicans won, why would they change it? The southerners of 1860 should be criticized for bailing out as soon as they no longer dominated the national debate, but not for taking with them what they had created to begin with.

Why would I be criticizing them for not changing it? Only for saying it was about state's rights when the only state's right they cared about was slavery.

However, checking the wiki article (which has been immensely expanded since the last time I read it) it seems the confederate constitution made a ton of changes to weaken the power of the federal government. The perils of using wiki as a source...

-edit-

Although honestly I don't know enough about the constitution to say if the article is more accurate now.