It's TiDoS Month in Virginia!

[Bando]

TiDoS being Treason in Defense of Slavery. What the hell is McDonnell thinking? His explanation to the Post reeks of historical revisionism.

Southern history encompasses hundreds of years. I continue to be flabbergasted that these 5 years have come to represent the end all be all for some southerners.

[SSHoya]

He's thinking about re-election. . .

[Boz]

He can't be re-elected.

This is a "meh" for me. I think it's OK for the Commonwealth or other states to commemorate this period in our history.

I will concede, however, that the governor's proclamation regarding this was EXTREMELY poorly written, with no mention of the negative.

[theexorcist]

Can we cut out the slavery argument? Any competent college history course makes it clear that the causes of the Civil War were far beyond slavery, and saying that the Civil War was all about slavery is and remains foolish (rememember that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the North). A North that repeatedly fanned the flames of secession beforehand and did an awful job of Reconstruction loses a lot of points for just saying that they stopped slavery and that everything was OK.

Romanticizing Confederate history involves stepping up - albeit in an extreme fashion - to the abuses of the federal government, and has been a staple in Southern politics for decades, far after race departed the equation. It remains a part of Virginia, and a mild proclamation that puts it on par with several other months does not seem unreasonable or excessive.

[SSHoya]

Boz, my bad you are correct, sir. Forgot that the Commonwealth has lameducks going in . . .I live in the People's Republic of Maryland.

[Bando]

Apr 7, 2010 13:33:34 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Can we cut out the slavery argument? Any competent college history course makes it clear that the causes of the Civil War were far beyond slavery, and saying that the Civil War was all about slavery is and remains foolish (rememember that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the North). A North that repeatedly fanned the flames of secession beforehand and did an awful job of Reconstruction loses a lot of points for just saying that they stopped slavery and that everything was OK.

Romanticizing Confederate history involves stepping up - albeit in an extreme fashion - to the abuses of the federal government, and has been a staple in Southern politics for decades, far after race departed the equation. It remains a part of Virginia, and a mild proclamation that puts it on par with several other months does not seem unreasonable or excessive.

Um, no. No war has a single cause, but the overarching cause of the Civil War was the dispute over slavery. Every minor cause was an outgrowth of this broader dispute. The proximate cause was the election of a president from an abolitionist party and a realization by the slave states that they were entering a period of perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College. Again, this goes back to the original dispute about slavery. To say otherwise is revisionist and contradicts what the Confederate leaders said at the time.

The Confederate States of America was a regime dedicated to preserving the ability of whites to own blacks as property via rebellion against the United States. I don't think we need to constantly celebrate that regime as if it was anything other than evil.

[The Stig]

Slavery was the single biggest cause of Secession. There were other more immediate causes, but in most cases slavery was the deeper cause that was driving the more immediate cause. For example, the most immediate cause of Secession was the election of Lincoln. Why did Lincoln's election cause South Carolina to secede? Because they were afraid he would ban slavery nationwide. Never mind the fact that it was an unfounded fear (Lincoln wouldn't have emancipated the slaves without the War), it still showed the slavery issue's domination over Southern thought.

A lot of the other reasons for the war are just euphemisms for slavery. Southerners like to say that they seceded to "defend our way of life." That's a true statement, but it conveniently ignores the fact that the way of life that they were trying to defend was dependent on slavery.

Is the North totally innocent? No. Did the Radicals make a total hash of Reconstruction? Yes. But let's not do what Confederate apologists would like us to do and let those side issues obscure the main issue: Slavery.

[theexorcist]

Apr 7, 2010 14:15:51 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 7, 2010 13:33:34 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Can we cut out the slavery argument? Any competent college history course makes it clear that the causes of the Civil War were far beyond slavery, and saying that the Civil War was all about slavery is and remains foolish (rememember that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the North). A North that repeatedly fanned the flames of secession beforehand and did an awful job of Reconstruction loses a lot of points for just saying that they stopped slavery and that everything was OK.

Romanticizing Confederate history involves stepping up - albeit in an extreme fashion - to the abuses of the federal government, and has been a staple in Southern politics for decades, far after race departed the equation. It remains a part of Virginia, and a mild proclamation that puts it on par with several other months does not seem unreasonable or excessive.

Um, no. No war has a single cause, but the overarching cause of the Civil War was the dispute over slavery. Every minor cause was an outgrowth of this broader dispute. The proximate cause was the election of a president from an abolitionist party and a realization by the slave states that they were entering a period of perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College. Again, this goes back to the original dispute about slavery. To say otherwise is revisionist and contradicts what the Confederate leaders said at the time.

The Confederate States of America was a regime dedicated to preserving the ability of whites to own blacks as property via rebellion against the United States. I don't think we need to constantly celebrate that regime as if it was anything other than evil.

If that was the case and the North was so hellbent on stopping slavery, why did the North continue slavery both during and after the Civil War? When states seceded, many outlined states' rights as part of their rationale for doing so. While slavery may have been the named cause, it is not the sole one and served as a proxy for other causes - had it not been slavery, it would have been something else.

As such, if you want to discuss other regimes during the same time as "evil", Lincoln's Union, which was so high-minded about destroying slavery that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederate rebelling states but did nothing for those holding slaves in Kentucky, Maryland, or Delaware is the height of hypocrisy and evil - as opposed to an edict that could have freed slaves there easily, the Union did nothing.

The full irony occurred when the Union argued that the Confederacy violated the Constitution when they seceded, then proceeded to violate most of the Bill of Rights during its prosecution of the war (the Constitution does not provide a "morality clause" that enables you to perform mass arrests if you don't agree with the line of speech) - a clear usurpation of powers by the federal government that essentially backed up the rationale of the deterioration of states' rights as a logic for secession.

I'm not going to go all crazy and say that Lincoln was evil - he saved the Union and enabled the US to win a war that could have broken it up into little fiefdoms. But reading the Civil War as the shining kight of the Union taking down the Gray Menace of slavery is a poor interpretation of history. A mild recognition, but not celebration, of that, seems entirely reasonable.

[Boz]

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--

Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

Sorry, had to do it.

;D

[hoyatables]

Apr 7, 2010 14:15:51 GMT -5 Bando said:

Apr 7, 2010 13:33:34 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Can we cut out the slavery argument? Any competent college history course makes it clear that the causes of the Civil War were far beyond slavery, and saying that the Civil War was all about slavery is and remains foolish (rememember that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the North). A North that repeatedly fanned the flames of secession beforehand and did an awful job of Reconstruction loses a lot of points for just saying that they stopped slavery and that everything was OK.

Romanticizing Confederate history involves stepping up - albeit in an extreme fashion - to the abuses of the federal government, and has been a staple in Southern politics for decades, far after race departed the equation. It remains a part of Virginia, and a mild proclamation that puts it on par with several other months does not seem unreasonable or excessive.

Um, no. No war has a single cause, but the overarching cause of the Civil War was the dispute over slavery. Every minor cause was an outgrowth of this broader dispute. The proximate cause was the election of a president from an abolitionist party and a realization by the slave states that they were entering a period of perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College. Again, this goes back to the original dispute about slavery. To say otherwise is revisionist and contradicts what the Confederate leaders said at the time.

The Confederate States of America was a regime dedicated to preserving the ability of whites to own blacks as property via rebellion against the United States. I don't think we need to constantly celebrate that regime as if it was anything other than evil.

I've always looked at it this way:

• Multiple causes -- economic, social, political, theoretical -- led to secession.
  
• The inability to reconcile the issue of slavery led to war.
  

[The Stig]

Apr 7, 2010 15:04:38 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Apr 7, 2010 14:15:51 GMT -5 Bando said:

Um, no. No war has a single cause, but the overarching cause of the Civil War was the dispute over slavery. Every minor cause was an outgrowth of this broader dispute. The proximate cause was the election of a president from an abolitionist party and a realization by the slave states that they were entering a period of perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College. Again, this goes back to the original dispute about slavery. To say otherwise is revisionist and contradicts what the Confederate leaders said at the time.

The Confederate States of America was a regime dedicated to preserving the ability of whites to own blacks as property via rebellion against the United States. I don't think we need to constantly celebrate that regime as if it was anything other than evil.

If that was the case and the North was so hellbent on stopping slavery, why did the North continue slavery both during and after the Civil War? When states seceded, many outlined states' rights as part of their rationale for doing so. While slavery may have been the named cause, it is not the sole one and served as a proxy for other causes - had it not been slavery, it would have been something else.

As such, if you want to discuss other regimes during the same time as "evil", Lincoln's Union, which was so high-minded about destroying slavery that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederate rebelling states but did nothing for those holding slaves in Kentucky, Maryland, or Delaware is the height of hypocrisy and evil - as opposed to an edict that could have freed slaves there easily, the Union did nothing.

The full irony occurred when the Union argued that the Confederacy violated the Constitution when they seceded, then proceeded to violate most of the Bill of Rights during its prosecution of the war (the Constitution does not provide a "morality clause" that enables you to perform mass arrests if you don't agree with the line of speech) - a clear usurpation of powers by the federal government that essentially backed up the rationale of the deterioration of states' rights as a logic for secession.

I'm not going to go all crazy and say that Lincoln was evil - he saved the Union and enabled the US to win a war that could have broken it up into little fiefdoms. But reading the Civil War as the shining kight of the Union taking down the Gray Menace of slavery is a poor interpretation of history. A mild recognition, but not celebration, of that, seems entirely reasonable.

I'm sort of sick of this line of argument from Confederate apologists. Somebody criticizes the Confederacy, and they immediately start screaming "BUT THE NORTH WAS BAD!!!!!"

Sure, the North did some bad things before, during, and after the Civil War. But just because the North was bad doesn't mean the South was automatically good. As bad as the North behaved, the South behaved far worse.

Like you said, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free the slaves in the North. It was a hypocritical political move through and through. But even though the North didn't have pure motives for freeing the slaves, at least they issued the Proclamation, which made the ultimate abolition of slavery inevitable. I must have missed the part of the history books about the South freeing slaves during the Civil War.

The North didn't invade the South because the North wanted to get rid of slavery. The North attacked to protect the Union. But that doesn't change the fact that the Southern secession was driven primarily by slavery. In other words, the South seceded because they wanted to protect slavery, but in doing so they threatened the Union. The North responded to the threat to the Union with war.

[TBird41]

Apr 7, 2010 15:04:38 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Apr 7, 2010 14:15:51 GMT -5 Bando said:

Um, no. No war has a single cause, but the overarching cause of the Civil War was the dispute over slavery. Every minor cause was an outgrowth of this broader dispute. The proximate cause was the election of a president from an abolitionist party and a realization by the slave states that they were entering a period of perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College. Again, this goes back to the original dispute about slavery. To say otherwise is revisionist and contradicts what the Confederate leaders said at the time.

The Confederate States of America was a regime dedicated to preserving the ability of whites to own blacks as property via rebellion against the United States. I don't think we need to constantly celebrate that regime as if it was anything other than evil.

If that was the case and the North was so hellbent on stopping slavery, why did the North continue slavery both during and after the Civil War? When states seceded, many outlined states' rights as part of their rationale for doing so. While slavery may have been the named cause, it is not the sole one and served as a proxy for other causes - had it not been slavery, it would have been something else.

As such, if you want to discuss other regimes during the same time as "evil", Lincoln's Union, which was so high-minded about destroying slavery that the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the Confederate rebelling states but did nothing for those holding slaves in Kentucky, Maryland, or Delaware is the height of hypocrisy and evil - as opposed to an edict that could have freed slaves there easily, the Union did nothing.

The full irony occurred when the Union argued that the Confederacy violated the Constitution when they seceded, then proceeded to violate most of the Bill of Rights during its prosecution of the war (the Constitution does not provide a "morality clause" that enables you to perform mass arrests if you don't agree with the line of speech) - a clear usurpation of powers by the federal government that essentially backed up the rationale of the deterioration of states' rights as a logic for secession.

I'm not going to go all crazy and say that Lincoln was evil - he saved the Union and enabled the US to win a war that could have broken it up into little fiefdoms. But reading the Civil War as the shining kight of the Union taking down the Gray Menace of slavery is a poor interpretation of history. A mild recognition, but not celebration, of that, seems entirely reasonable.

That's nice. The South still got it's ass kicked though. Not sure why they want to celebrate the fact that they couldn't even keep a drunk and a man who had a nervous breakdown from whipping their troops and burning their cities to the ground.

The South is like America's France--really arrogant, but can't win a war.

[SirSaxa]

And Georgetown adopted the colors Blue and Gray to help heal the wounds and restore our nation as one, unified, United States where everyone has a vote, majority rules, but the rights of the individual are still protected. It's been almost 150 years since the war. Maybe it's time to get over it.

[Jack]

Apr 7, 2010 16:34:58 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

And Georgetown adopted the colors Blue and Gray to help heal the wounds and restore our nation as one, unified, United States where everyone has a vote, majority rules, but the rights of the individual are still protected. It's been almost 150 years since the war. Maybe it's time to get over it.

Agreed. I think the colors should be teal, black, silver, and white.

[Boz]

Well done, Jack!

Regardless, I hardly think this was worthy of practically a full hour on The Situation Room.

I was down in the gym just now and Wolf Blitzer literally was covering this for about 45 minutes out of an hour, with some brief interruptions to talk about nuclear policy and West Virginia coal miners.

P'raps a tad overkill there, Wolfie???

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Hey, Virginia: So why not just call it Civil War History Month? That way you can have a politics-neutral title and spin the interpretation of the events in such as way as to accomplish your purpose (whatever the heck your purpose is). Way to pull an Allen!

And what The Stig (first three sentences) and Jack and SirSaxa said.

[SirSaxa]

Apr 7, 2010 16:59:12 GMT -5 Jack said:

Apr 7, 2010 16:34:58 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

And Georgetown adopted the colors Blue and Gray to help heal the wounds and restore our nation as one, unified, United States where everyone has a vote, majority rules, but the rights of the individual are still protected. It's been almost 150 years since the war. Maybe it's time to get over it.

Agreed. I think the colors should be teal, black, silver, and white.

OK Jack, I did get a chuckle out of that one!

[jerseyhoya34]

What will be interesting is whether McDonnell now faces a backlash from his base due to his apology and sur-proclamation. This kind of thing, much like the file and fundraise HCR lawsuit, is crude politics and another situation where McDonnell's research/theories are firmly on the wrong side of history. Suffice to say that the Governor has not distinguished himself thus far in his young governorship.

[EasyEd]

Should any proclamation of Black History Month make reference to the crime rate in predominantly African American neighborhoods? Just askin'.

[Boz]

Apr 7, 2010 20:57:55 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

What will be interesting is whether McDonnell now faces a backlash from his base due to his apology and sur-proclamation. This kind of thing, much like the file and fundraise HCR lawsuit, is crude politics and another situation where McDonnell's research/theories are firmly on the wrong side of history. Suffice to say that the Governor has not distinguished himself thus far in his young governorship.

Hmmm, well he has managed to close a severe deficit in Virginia in his first budget....without proposing any tax increases on Virginians. Yes, it is possible that all of his solutions may not work, but it was a notable accomplishment for everyone living in the state.

What are your governors, or our President, doing to curb deficits?
(I don't know if you actually live in Jersey, but if you do, then your governor is making a strong effort as well)

But by all means, let's focus on the more important issues.