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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

When I'm found out, I continue my bluff by confusing the other debaters with a barrage of links, too long to be actually read.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

No, they fought to maintain the sovereignty of the states, a principle on which the nation was founded. More directly, they fought for their families, their brothers in arms, and their way of life.

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...

This is what I remember as being accurate. "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

Further, I don't believe the Southern states had so much of a problem with the Constitution itself, but with how the government had been drifting away from the founding principles expressed in that document. They believed themselves to be - and I think quite accurately - patriots, returning the balance of power to the states as was originally envisioned by the founders.

[Strike For The South]

What a joke.

A small elite upper class sent the vast majority of the poor and destitute to do their fighting, all the while promising them the life they had.

The war was nothing more than a desperate attempent to keep a way of life going for 1% of the souths population.

And for the record the stars and bars is the Confederate battle flag, the actual confederate flag is much more quaint.

[Hooahguy]

[PanzerJaeger]

What a joke.

A small elite upper class sent the vast majority of the poor and destitute to do their fighting, all the while promising them the life they had.

The war was nothing more than a desperate attempent to keep a way of life going for 1% of the souths population.

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

[Strike For The South]

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

Of course, we all know the stories of the feds picking the Irish right off the boat and handing them a rifle.

But to assume that the movers and shakers of the confederacy were concerened with states rights is to assume wrong, look at anyone seccesion vote and the most "for" votes are right in line with cotton belt.

Look at the Confederate speeches before the war and then after, they quickly changed their tune so it would fit the "Lost Cause" narritive

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.

That is Alexander Stevens

[The Wizard]

The Civil War was a conflict without base, without justice, without proper cause. The South had no right to secede. Slavery was the greatest and most black evil in the history of the United States. It was nothing but the blind, unrelenting thirst for power, which had driven the South to force its way of life on the rest of the Union for ninety years, and which finally drove it to plunge the nation into the bloodiest conflict it has ever experienced.

In any event, they were excellent soldiers who fought for principled leaders and a noble cause.

Tell me... what is noble about slavery? Do enlighten my ignorant person.

[drone]

The South had no right to secede.

That's debatable.

It was nothing but the blind, unrelenting thirst for power, which had driven the South to force its way of life on the rest of the Union for ninety years, and which finally drove it to plunge the nation into the bloodiest conflict it has ever experienced.

How exactly did the South force it's way of life onto the rest of the Union? Individual states could choose to ban slavery, as was their right under the 10th Amendment, and many did.

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course, we all know the stories of the feds picking the Irish right off the boat and handing them a rifle.

But to assume that the movers and shakers of the confederacy were concerened with states rights is to assume wrong, look at anyone seccesion vote and the most "for" votes are right in line with cotton belt.

And to assume that the prime motivator for the war was exclusively slavery ignores years of discord over states rights, regionalism, and a host of other issues that had been splitting the North and the South for some time. Examining the Confederate Constitution only strengthens this position.

Further, the election of an abolitionist president and the whole issue of slavery was just the tipping point in a string of state's rights issues that the South protested as power began to centralize around the federal government, which was dominated by the North due to demographic realities; including the Alien and Sedition controversy, the Hartford Convention, and of course the Nullification Crisis - none having anything to do with slavery. The situation was tolerable when most of the power was centered in the states, but as it shifted toward the federal government, the Southern states increasingly saw themselves losing the ability to control their own destinies, which had been a founding principle of the nation. To ignore these undertones in favor of the simplistic "we want our slaves" view does a disservice to the complexities of the political reality of 1800s America.

Tell me... what is noble about slavery? Do enlighten my ignorant person.

What would lead you to believe I was talking about slavery?

[Strike For The South]

And to assume that the prime motivator for the war was exclusively slavery ignores years discord over states rights, regionalism, and a host of other issues that had been splitting the North and the South for some time. Examining the Confederate Constitution only strengthens this position.

Further, the election of an abolitionist president and the whole issue of slavery was just one in a string of state's rights issues that the South protested as power began to centralize around the federal government, which was dominated by the North due to demographic realities; including the Alien and Sedition controversy, the Hartford Convention, and of course the Nullification Crisis - none having anything to do with slavery. The situation was tolerable when most of the power was centered in the states, but as it shifted toward the federal government, the Southern states increasingly saw themselves losing the ability to control their own destinies, which had been a founding principle of the nation. To ignore these undertones in favor of the simplistic "we want our slaves" view does a disservice to the complexities of the political reality of 1800s America.
?

Fair points but the undertow of all these issues was the way of life which Southeners had built for themselves on the backs of slaves. This way of life only worked because of the ability to export large amount of cotton to European markets and for that you needed slaves, a gin, and no protectionism.

In a way the antebellum south was the ani-thesis of the industrial revolution. A largely agrain socitey subsisting on an underclass compared to the north which was indusrializing at an alarming rate. The real blame lies in the way the constitution was framed. States rights nor slavery are ever flat out addressed and this of course leads to everyone interpeting it as they damn well please.

The overtones in the state constitutions are quite clear what the Confederates thought about the black man (which to be fair was the prevading thought at the time for all peoples).

The election of Lincoln is also a paper tiger, The corwin amendment had been agreed upon by every major presidential nominee in 1860

As you look at what these men said and where the loudest voices for secession was coming from, it becomes quite clear what the engine of the CSA was

[PanzerJaeger]

Fair points but the undertow of all these issues was the way of life which Southeners had built for themselves on the backs of slaves. This way of life only worked because of the ability to export large amount of cotton to European markets and for that you needed slaves, a gin, and no protectionism.

In a way the antebellum south was the ani-thesis of the industrial revolution. A largely agrain socitey subsisting on an underclass compared to the north which was indusrializing at an alarming rate. The real blame lies in the way the constitution was framed. States rights nor slavery are ever flat out addressed and this of course leads to everyone interpeting it as they damn well please.

The overtones in the state constitutions are quite clear what the Confederates thought about the black man (which to be fair was the prevading thought at the time for all peoples).

The election of Lincoln is also a paper tiger, The corwin amendment had been agreed upon by every major presidential nominee in 1860

As you look at what these men said and where the loudest voices for secession was coming from, it becomes quite clear what the engine of the CSA was

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

[Subotan]

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.

As well as it being illegal for a state to secede from the Confederacy.

. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

True, but that is exactly why any such attempts to commemorate the Confederacy should be treated with caution. I think we can all feel sympathy for Johnny Reb who went out and died to prevent Northern Aggression, but we also have to consider why the institutions which allowed him to fight were created. They were created due to a clash over states rights, on the issue of slavery. Ergo, the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, and so was Johnny Reb. He may not have been fighting for slavery in his conscience, but in the bigger picture, that is the only thing he was fighting for. As slavery as an phenomenon is indefensible, so are the institutions which uphold it, and that includes the Confederate States of America.

Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.

[PanzerJaeger]

True, but that is exactly why any such attempts to commemorate the Confederacy should be treated with caution. I think we can all feel sympathy for Johnny Reb who went out and died to prevent Northern Aggression, but we also have to consider why the institutions which allowed him to fight were created. They were created due to a clash over states rights, on the issue of slavery. Ergo, the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, and so was Johnny Reb. He may not have been fighting for slavery in his conscience, but in the bigger picture, that is the only thing he was fighting for. As slavery as an phenomenon is indefensible, so are the institutions which uphold it, and that includes the Confederate States of America.

In that case, we should cancel 4th of July celebrations and American history as a whole should not be commemorated, as the nation was essentially created through aggressive expansionist policies and the destruction of hundreds of other nations. A more mature view, in my opinion, is to realize that these commemorative holidays celebrate the positive elements of a particular group's history, and that the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to be able to separate the good from the bad. In that vein, I do not believe anyone seriously views Confederate History Month as a celebration of slavery.

Those seeking to make hay over this are a) the typical black profiteers that come out of the woodwork every time anything even vaguely related to race comes up and b) Democrats seeking to score some political points against Governer McDonnell.

Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.

Couldn't disagree more!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.

Although it's off-topic, the Allied victory in WW1 set up it's far more terrible sequel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Had the Secession never happened, or had the South seceded and won its independence, slavery would still have been scrapped within a few decades. The economics of mass production and the mechanization of agriculture would have killed it even if common morality did not. So, even a souther victory would have done little more than extend it a while. Slavery would have been "legal" for much longer, but functionally discarded almost as quickly as it was.

Most of the lads on both sides fought because of the excitement of the thing -- seeing the elephant -- and the rush of excitement as all of their neighbors volunteered and what not. This paled as the war progressed and conscription became necessary, but by then too much blood had been spilled for much in the way of "live and let live" to occur. The South fought for its way of life and to continue its right to own slaves. The North fought because the South needed to be taught a lesson (and eventually to end slavery as well). The South did not fight a war of aggression -- yet was by far the more bellicose of the two.

A sad era.

[The Lurker Below]

I must agree that essentially the war was fought because of slavery, regardless of the semantics and details that many can bring should they wish.

Having said that I can't help but be amused that Lincoln freed no slaves, and before it was over the CSA did free theirs.

[Strike For The South]

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

I agree that regular old Johnny had no bone in this fight, but the men whom voted on secession did. The tariffs affected the yeoman very little as he had very little to sell internationaly to begin with.

The North dominated the south only because the elite in the South refused to change due to the fact they had rigged the game in the first place. Domonation only came when the Southern elite refused to see the writing on the wall and felt the only true explanation could be those damned Yanks were trying to poach on their way of life.

I dont mean to come off sounding as classist but the American South was exactly that and the majority of Southeners were forced into a war they did not want.