Confederacy in the United States

[Nekowolf]

Governor Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia, had declared (or at least attempted) to declare April as "Confederate History Month." Some public buildings, such as city halls, in the Southern states still raise the Confederate flag as well as the United States flag.

Why should we have any form of honor to the Confederacy? They are no more. They wanted to secede, they were pro-slavery, they wanted to separate from the Union. And they lost the war.

It's one thing to "honor the dead" I suppose, but having a Confederate History month, raising their flag, that's honoring the organization, the group, and everything it stood for. We don't honor the Nazis, we don't honor the North Vietnamese, we don't honor the Russians. Because they were American, they are somehow special? Except, they wanted to SEPARATE from America, they would not be "American" if they had won the war.

So why should our states raise their flag and honor their history, if they did not want to even be a part of us?

[supersimoholic]

Confederacy? I'm not stupid, just English (and went to a rubbish school)

[Oaktree]

I think that it's a stupid idea, but I don't really like any of the "____ History" Months. I think that it would be better to include whatever history is to be taught within the general curriculum. I think that the big point against this is, as you said, that they lost the war. The Confederacy is no more, so there is no point in trying to promote it.

Supersimiholic: The Confederacy was the side in the American Civil War that wanted to secede from the Union. They wanted states' rights, in other words, a government in which most of the power was in the hands of the states, as opposed to the federal government. The Confederacy consisted of several Southern states, and the fact that slavery was more concentrated in the South than the North made the Confederacy look bad. The Civil War wasn't caused by the issue of slavery, but slavery certainly became tangled up in the politics of the war.

[Doc Doofus]

It wasn't about states' rights. It was about slavery. They wanted to enslave people. Read the Confederate Constitution that they wrote.

For instance:
Article I, section 9, clause 4:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Notice that it always says negro slaves. It didn't forbid other types of slaves, but negros, in particular, were never to be protected from slavery by law.

And this:
Article IV, section 2, clause 1:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

When traveling from one state to another, this article says that a state you're traveling through can't set him free based on silly notions of state's rights. Your right to own your slave is exempt from all states' rights. So much for states' rights.

And here's something from the 1861 speech by Confederate Vice President Stephens announcing the formation of the Confederacy:

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.

So there you have it, a movement based not just on slavery, but specifically racist slavery targeted at blacks based on the "great moral truth" of their inferiority.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/04/commemorating-confederate-history-month.html

[Hinoemasim]

You rock, Doc. Can I steal this for when the issue comes up on ONTD_politics? (A site I bet you'd love, if you don't already.)

[Mistermook]

It wasn't right, it certainly was wrong, but trying to get inside the head of people who do bad things and figure out how and why they thought what they were doing was correct is nearly always a good rule of thumb.

The South had no great industrialization happening. It was not populated much and would not be properly populated as we understand the appeal of warm weather now until after the invention of the air conditioner. It was not the best and most prosperous farm lands in the country any longer, that right belonged to the territories that were being settled in the Midwest in the years preceding the Civil War. They enjoyed a fair amount of trade thanks to the Mississippi and New Orleans, but river travel must have seemed a bit uncertain with the growth of the new railroads and the invention of the steam ships.

Now, add in "we want you to gut your primary source of revenue and stop this slavery business." Even if you weren't a wealthy land-owner this was obviously bad news and bad economically for the South. If the South had come to the North and demanded that each Northern state disrupt their own economy similarly they'd likely be upset and a bit outraged too. I'm not defending slavery, but at its absolute essence Southern slavery wasn't as much about the right to own people as the right to not have the whole process of Southern agriculture at the time swept aside in one fell swoop, while forcing Southern states to figure out what to do with millions of "new" people they essentially used as farm tools. On some level, even knowing I oppose racism with every bone of my body, it's hard not to recognize that people wouldn't fight this.

As for the maligned "whites are good, blacks are bad" language? That sort of stuff was pretty prevalent even in the North and rest f the country until after WW2. We guided national policy in the Pacific and California on the premise that Asians were a "lesser race" compared to our great "Teutonic destiny" as an underlying principle until Hitler sort of co-opted the whole racism schtick and made it a little embarrassing with the Holocaust. And the Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction Pre-Civil Rights Movement South certainly wasn't guiding anyone's politics, even their own much, so that lays everything pretty much at the feet of the oh so much more civilized parts of the country, like Rock Springs Wyoming where the truly-without racist intent whites of the Knights of Labor killed a few dozen Chinese workers in cold blood one night. Or the Native Americans, also massacred in the name of white destiny by Union forces...

What I'm saying is that the sort of racism that people condemn in the Confederacy was systemic and the norm in all regions of American society until after World War II, with that progress beginning at the turn of the century when immigration really started going at an all time high - sometimes also with explosive racist undertones, just like immigration issues continue to have today with much of Central and South America. That the Confederacy was founded upon and fought for slavery is both inexcusable and rational. No one should ever own another human being and no one should be denied human rights because of their skin color, but few people idly accept the radical destruction of their livelihoods either.

What I find tragic about the Civil War, beyond the idea that this country has such a steady diet of racist ideals in its history in the first place, is that I think that in a few short years after the Civil War had already been fought advances in mechanized agriculture would have radically altered the economics realties of the South by themselves and without the economic incentives to own slaves the institution might have been peacefully disbanded with much less of the issues of Reconstruction that followed in reality. That certainly would not have been much comfort to slaves kept for years longer, of course, but I think the general economic hardships imposed by the war and Reconstruction having not existed might have bridged the gap to allow a better general standard of living for everyone in the South no matter what their skin color might be.

The US Constitution had some important bits about slavery in it too, until it was amended. It wasn't "just" about slavery though, was it?

[cdanon]

I am a southerner and I agree that the idea is stupid. Remembering history is important but not in this way. Maybe the R VA Gov is being a vindictive prick because the pres is a Black democrat? Just a side thought and probably nothing to do with it, but who knows. I have confederate ancestors, visited their graves and wondered about it all--but my kin lost nothing with the fall of the confederacy. I don't understand the want to dredge up something that will cause ill will with your neighbors. I know a lot of guys who still romanticize the war after all this time....sad really. Division just keeps making things smaller, regardless of how it is packaged.

[Nekowolf]

The general criticism going around is that he's appealing to a hardcore Southern Republican base. In short, it's political.

That's the general criticism, anyway.

[grumpy_otter]

I live in Virginia, so I've watch Confederate History Month come and go. If you count back for the last 6 governors, the Republicans have endorsed CHM, while the Democrats cancel it.

It is an entirely political move that has little to do with the actual Confederacy or what it stood for--it is a vote-getting move. Those who fly Dixie Flags tend to be Republican. (Which is kind of funny because most Confederates prior to the Civil War were Democrats)

[Oaktree]

I go to college in Virginia, so I'm hoping it doesn't get pushed too much. Though my college is generally pretty liberal, so I doubt that it will get much mention.

[grumpy_otter]

I go to college in Virginia, so I'm hoping it doesn't get pushed too much. Though my college is generally pretty liberal, so I doubt that it will get much mention.

You will get invited to pig roasts if you are on a "Sons of the Confederacy" mailing list. Other than that, nobody (who does not specifically choose to) notices.

[Nekowolf]

Which is kind of funny because most Confederates prior to the Civil War were Democrats
Oh how the tables have turned, eh?

Anyway, yeah, it may be entirely political, but it still sends a message, and one that could be interrupted by the wrong kind of people. Just look at some of what has been going on in the Tea Party. Metaphorically violent language leads to real violence. In a much more subtle way, this political, uh, game of theirs could be sending signals back to certain people.

[Safyre420]

I'm from Virginia and I've never even heard of CHM. Not to mention, what's the big deal about having a "history month"? It's not like we are inundated with information about whatever history is proclaimed that month. Black History Month, most information I've seen during that month was little blurbs here and there and a crap ton of "black" movies all over the tv.

[Nekowolf]

I'm actually not a big fan of "history" months either. It's essentially demographic favoritism.

Sure, you have Black and Hispanic (or was it Hispanic Heritage month?), but what about, say, English? Irish? Maybe I want a history month, too? Let's throw in German, Danish, Norwegian.

Why are they deserving of special dedications, and the rest aren't? Sure, they may be more significant in our country's history, but still.

[Mistermook]

I think everyone would be happier with Black History month if it were a real holiday and we got time off work for it.