The Hatikvah Holocaust Education Center in Springfield, Mass. has a very interesting artifact in its possession: an application for membership into the Ku Klux Klan … from Easthampton, Mass.
Earlier this month, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed a proclamation declaring April as Confederate History Month in Virginia. It would have been a footnote in that day’s news, but he made the inexcusable and bone-headed error of not explicitly mentioning slavery in the proclamation. Naturally, he brought down a ton of well-deserved criticism from civil rights leaders and other politicians, and within a couple days had recalled the old proclamation and issued a new one, and apologizing profusely.
Normally we would think that would be the end of it, but these are not normal times. McDonnell is a Republican and subscribes to some sort of conservative political philosophy. He’s a Southerner and there is a growing group of conservatives who have been accused of being racist or “neo-confederate,” and many of President Obama’s most visible supporters are quick to accuse his opponents of racism. Many of us from the North are suffering from what I like to call “the Southern Prejudice.”
This last one could use some explanation: the Southern Prejudice is the tendency among Northerners to stereotype all white Southerners as uneducated, NASCAR-loving, evangelical fundamentalist Christian, rednecked, gun-crazed racists. Former President George W. Bush, despite being born in Connecticut, going to high school at the Phillips Academy in Andover, going to college at Yale and getting an MBA at Harvard is regarded as the archetypal Southerner, along with fictional characters like Boss Hogg from “The Dukes of Hazard” and various cinematic prison wardens from movies attempting to capitalize on the success of “Cool Hand Luke.” Like all prejudices, it is patently untrue.
The reason it is important is because it seems to be an unspoken assumption among prominent political commentators. Thus, we have the fallacious assertions that states’ rights equals racism, or support for secession equals racism. It is a historical association produced by racist politicians in an attempt to prevent federal interference with Jim Crow laws, but it is quite possible to discuss both without any sort of racist intent or meaning.
It is also important because it demonstrates how easy it is to judge others while ignoring one’s own past. The people who immediately jumped on McDonnell have forgotten the forced bussing in Boston that lasted from the 1970s through the 1980s, where the progressive and liberal white people of Boston took to the streets and fought with police to prevent their children from having to ride on the same busses and go to the same schools as black children. Unlike in the South, where public schools were successfully integrated, white parents in Boston started sending their children to private schools – they figured the black parents would never be able to afford. Who commemorates that?
The KKK was once very popular in the North, especially during the 1920s, when its membership in New England rivaled that of the Freemasons. My great-grandfather, Moses Robare, managed the A&P in Au Sable Forks, New York – very close to the Canadian border. He was a Catholic and the local Klan threatened to burn down the store unless he was fired. He was fired.
The race riots of the North in the 1970s are not remembered, nor is the anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant ethos of nineteenth century New England. Northerners are always so quick to accuse Southerners of racism without reflecting on their own racist and intolerant heritage. Who remembers the Pequot Massacre or the Narragansett War? The Puritan persecution of Quakers? The federal government has never so much as apologized for everything it did to the Native Americans.
It is, unfortunately, natural to try to forget the shames and sins of the past. Germany and Japan don’t like their actions during World War II being dredged up time and time again, the English don’t like to remember everything they’ve done to the Irish or the Welsh or the Scots and the North has pretty successfully excised its shameful history – why should the South be different?
I myself have Southern lineage. Northern Virginia is as close to a homeland I have and I am proud of my Southern ancestors. They were Quakers and abolitionists. The Civil War destroyed their land – my ancestor Lewis Pidgeon, then just seven years old, was taken prisoner by Union forces and made to parade up and down some railroad tracks during the battle. Another ancestor, William Williams, was a Unionist and taken prisoner by the Confederacy. The Confederates thought they could get the federal government to pay them much needed hard currency as ransom, but my relatives’ appeals to bigwigs like Salmon Chase and even Lincoln himself – fell on deaf ears and in the end it was the kindness of complete strangers who stood for everything Williams was against that allowed him to return home safely.
That was the Confederacy people like to remember and it was just as real as the Confederacy that existed to perpetuate the most disgusting thing one group of human beings can do to another.
If we in the North can live without our mythology ever being challenged, than we can let the Southerners live with theirs. Or, we can face both our pasts and move forward into a better future.
Matthew M. Robare is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
rich amor • Nov 3, 2011 at 3:10 am
nice article man, thanks for sharing your idea
Steve P • May 11, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Matthew,
Good job on the editorial, enjoyed reading it.
The 2000 census showed the Midwest and Northeast are by far the most segregated regions in the country. The South is not only significantly more integrated than those regions, but the South also has by far the fastest rate of integration. See the Brookings Institution analysis of the 2000 census on racial segregation.
Not only do the Northeast and Midwest regions remain highly segregated, research groups like the Civil Rights Project are trying to understand why, in Boston and it’s surrounding metropolitan areas, so little progress has been made.
Budd • May 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I found one side of this arguement very educational. I was unaware of CHM. Thanks.
Robert • Apr 25, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“There must be some creepy white supremacist organization whose members (undoubtedly living off socialist welfare checks)…”
For what its worth, I’m not living on a welfare check. I happen to live in an exclusive suburb in a luxury townhome (paid for) in a major Texas city and on weekends enjoy driving my Range Rover down to Galveston to unwind on my 50 ft motoryacht (paid for). I travel for business by private jet for meetings domestic and international. My carbon footprint is like Bigfoot on Snowshoes.
For a day job, I head up $billion deepwater oil & gas development for a publicly traded oil company and pay over six figures a year in income taxes, partly so ignorant, ungrateful little short-pants neo-Marxists like you can sit on your behinds in some insignificant liberal arts school in the NE instead of having to get out and earn a living like a man. Oh, by the way, I happen to have a doctorate in engineering as well from one of the two flagship Texas universities who have more money in their endowment than the Mass. state budget.
We monitor little dime-a-dozen yankee peckerwoods like you through Southern Heritage News and Views and post (all my own original material, by the way) on message boards like this to remind the South-haters out there that we are proud of our Southern and Confederate Heritage, we’re not going to roll over and we aren’t going away. You should get out in the real world and take responsibility for your own life. It would help your I-hate-the-world misanthropy and expose you to a more realistic and balanced view of mankind and history.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm
There must be some creepy white supremacist organization whose members (undoubtedly living off socialist welfare checks) scour the lieberal yankee homosexual lamestream media websites so they can post anonymous copied and pasted garbage and feel like they furthered their cause.
At least I hope this is the case. It would be so disheartening to learn that these awful people could be produced within Massachusetts.
Makes me wish self-immolation would catch on as a protest act here in America.
Travis • Apr 23, 2010 at 10:33 am
Chris
I had no idea this was your forum, or that you could silence anyone you pleased by demanding they, “never respond again”. That is typical though, no debate or reasoning, stifle the opposition make shure ONLY your opinion is heard. Those who call the tune of tolerence, have no tolerence for any but their position. They listen to no position that is not in total agreemnt with their agenda, it is no wonder the discussion of the issues always bogs down, they will not allow it to move forward, I call it the “plantation mentality” while the world has moved forward in the last 150 years not so these who are still complaing about the plantation.
When the Irish came to these shores they were discriminated against, hated, beat and worse. They however decided to go to work and prove themselves, not laying in a wallow of past wrongs and travestys. Without special laws, rights or privilages they soon assimilated and grew. They did not even stop to debate about it they simply made it happen.
Slavery is still happening today! Not here on our soil, but it has never yet been eradicated, and not just black slavery either. Africa still traffics in slavery. Not only Africa of course Israel has also been cited for such abuses. Lets blame the south for that too….
New York Times (January 11, 1998) which described the horrible situation that Slavic Gentile prostitutes face today, trapped in Israel. As the Times notes, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and a resulting economic chaos, literally hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian women have been dispersed throughout the world, most entrapped in an international prostitution trade run by the “Russian mafia.” (Although it is certainly inferred, what the Times article does not overtly mention is that a significant part of the Russian mafia is Jewish. See later chapter). Glenn Frankel, however, a Washington Post correspondent in Jerusalem, took the perspective in 1994 that “there was much talk about the Russian mafia muscling in [to Israel], although the police and most crime experts agreed that the brothels were almost entirely under the control of the Israeli mafia and that the Russians worked mostly as low-level managers or hookers.” [FRANKEL, p. 175]
“Israel has become a routine destination for the global trafficking of women,” noted Leonard Fein in a 1998 Jewish Bulletin,
In a country of six million people, this averages about $75 a year paid to a pimp for every man, woman, and child in Israel. There are today 150 brothels and sex shops in Tel Aviv alone. [SILVER, E., 8-25-2000, p. 32]
Yes it’s a new face on an old issue.
Robert • Apr 23, 2010 at 10:32 am
Its too bad your anti-Southern bigotry and historical distortions can’t have free rein any more on the internet Chris. We’re had to listen to the agitprop put out by you and other neo-Marxist for 150 years, but not any more. We’re calling BS when we see yankee BS.
Maybe you could explain why any approach to Southern history other than complete digust and derision is counted as “mythology”, while taking a nuanced approach to say, the history of the British Empire or the American settlement (read Indian genocide) of the West is not?
You are unable to contradict a single one of my historical claims, so you resort to calling me “disgusting”. Well, tu quoque on you hoss. By the way, you should look up the term “manichean paranoia”, because you have a serious case of it.
Have a Dixie Day!
Chris Amorosi • Apr 22, 2010 at 10:29 pm
I see no one has bothered to look up the tu quoque fallacy as I suggested.
“Southerners took slavery and made the best of a bad situation out of it. It was through Southern slavery that a few tens of thousands of starved and shackled survivors of the yankee slave ships were civilized, Christianized, taught working trades and skills, taught to read, materially provided for in such a way that their numbers grew to 4 millions in just over 100 years.”
I hope Matthew Robare is reading this so he learns what southern mythology is all about and (hopefully) change his opinions accordingly.
You are a disgusting person, “Robert.”
Chris Amorosi
Former Collegian Columnist
Robert • Apr 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I read posts on this topic frequently and you can just about compile a list of Confederate FAQ’s along these lines.
1. For all the nitwits like Chris who think Gen. Lee, President Davis, the Confederate soldier, et al, were traitors or committed treason, please just go urinate on the Washington or Jefferson monuments; you are effectively doing the same thing when you tar our Confederate Founding Fathers with obloquoy for declaring and fighting for their right to self determination as did our Colonial Founding Fathers.
2. Come up with an acronym for the tired old shibboleth “It-was-all-about-slavery” (IWAAS). It will save us a lot of time in spotting that rubbish argument. The alternative would be to actually read some original source documents from the period or something by Thomas DiLorenzo explaining it was really all about the South paying 70 – 80% of the federal tax burden with only 30% of the representation in congress.
3. Antelbellum Southern slavery was not a sin, not evil and was not some hellish oppresion. Says who? Says about 1800 years of Church teaching on the matter from St Paul to Jonathan Edwards (a New England slaveholding puritan, by the way). So please, if you’re going to keep harping on that argument, at least admit that its unbiblical, un-Christian, secular humanism you are expounding as your touchstone. If you want some first hand testimony from the actual slaves about their treatment, go read the WPA Slave Narratives compiled in the 1930’s from interviews with former slaves. About 85% of them reflected favorably on the character of their masters and their kind treatment under slavery and the malevolent violence of the yankee invaders.
4. Do you think the prevalance of slavery in the South justified the invasion, murder and pillage by the northern armies? Really? Well, then I’m sure you’ll agree that since many of us in the South view the acceptance of “Gay Marriage” in certain NE states as an outrage against human dignity and morality, you wouldn’t mind if we get the chance one day to invade New England, murder 1/4 of the young men there and carry off as much plunder as possible, then impose military occupation and steal the land title as well, will you? After all, we can brush aside all your remonstrances with “Well, you just fought to preserve sodomy rights”
5. There is always some vile piece of dog excrement that argues that Confederates were moral equivalents to the Nazis and once again, Chris proves this law immutable. In addition to the plain stupidity of it, we are deeply offended by the despicable anti-Southern bigotry of being compared to Nazis. Nazis were neo-pagan totalitarians who waged offensive wars of invasion against their neighbors and persecuted/exterminated minority groups. Confederates were polar opposites on each of these points. If there is a “Nazi” parallel to be drawn here, it is between the Total War policies of Lincoln and Hitler. Got that, moron?
6. If Virginia, Texas and other Confederate states are going to have to grovel about slavery whenever they talk about Southern history, then shouldn’t the New England states similarly crawl on their knees and mention all the slave ships that sailed from their ports, the family fortunes built on the slave trade and exploitive way that women and children were abused in their textile mills in the 19th century? Shouldn’t New York always mention the slaves they burned at the stake and hanged in 1741 as a staple of any proclamation concerning their history?
Just a few thoughts. Deo Vindice.
“The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.” – Jefferson Davis
“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.” – Jefferson Davis
Robert • Apr 22, 2010 at 10:57 am
Chris is either very dishonest or very unfamiliar with the slave trade. Many Western nations were involved – but not the Confederate States of America. As far as US participation in the slave trade, it was run by New Englanders with finance and insurance provided by New Yorkers. At Constitutional Convention, a 20 year deadline was placed on further importation of slaves to the US are hardwired into the Constitution (Art I, Sect 9). Southern states supported an immediate end to the transatlantic slave trade, but NE slave traders lobbied for a 20 year extension. The fact that the US slave trade ended in 1808 is rather insignificant. The US and the prior 13 Colonies only accounted for 5 – 6 % of the slaves taken from W Africa. The bulk of slaves were taken to Brazil and to various Carribean Islands. Yankee slave trading across the Atlantic carried on right until the mid 1860’s. Bonus question: Who was the first independent state to pass legislation outlawing the slave trade? Virginia. Who was first colony/state to pass legislation reconizing slavery? Massachusetts. Where did first slave trading ship from America sail from? Massachusetts.
The point is that yankees propogated and profited from the barbaric transatlantic slave trade and were happy to dump their poor captives into the South as long as they could keep their money and let someone else have to deal with the long term effects of slavery on their society.
Southerners took slavery and made the best of a bad situation out of it. It was through Southern slavery that a few tens of thousands of starved and shackled survivors of the yankee slave ships were civilized, Christianized, taught working trades and skills, taught to read, materially provided for in such a way that their numbers grew to 4 millions in just over 100 years.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 22, 2010 at 12:36 am
That third to last sentence should read “It’s interesting how you’ve divined some accusation of racism against you [Travis] when I’ve made nothing of the sort.” Because as we all can see, Travis’ true position is shrouded in mystery and we really shouldn’t assume anything.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 22, 2010 at 12:34 am
Travis,
Your so-called facts were wrong. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote about the federal prohibition on international slave trade. Or a history book. Or the law.
And “Slavery became the whipping boy of the Northern government afraid losing power through the Kansas-Nebraska act” is not a fact. It is an argument. A poor, feeble argument that puts you squarely in the camp of traitors and slave-driving monsters.
Unless this is not your position? Why do you tease us so, Travis? Do tell us your real position that I’ve apparently mischaracterized so viciously. Or never respond again. Whatever works for you.
It’s interesting how you’ve divined some accusation of racism when I’ve made nothing of the sort. All I’ve done is attack the institution of slavery because it is a repugnant practice no matter the skin color of its victims. But like you said, “when facts fail accusation works I guess.”
Travis • Apr 21, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Sol Alinsky would be proud you now have transferred an issue into a personal attack on me… good work I simply put in some historical facts and you assume it’s my position. Yes sir propaganda 101 no honest discussion or debate, name calling and brow beating. I see your comfortable with any position you postulate all others are clearly racists.
My excuse? For documented historical facts? I offer neither excuse or apology. Instead of opinion I interjected some facts, not accusations or race baiting commentary. But, when facts fail accusation works I guess.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 21, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Blah blah blah, random trivia means nothing when you don’t form an argument, Travis. You’re also completely wrong about importing slaves, which had been illegal since 1808 (the first date it was constitutionally possible thanks to slaveocrats) and a general ban on the slave trade was enforced by both American and British ships. Why would the traitors suddenly reverse this state of affairs when (1) there was no hope of breaking the internationally enforced slave trade embargo anyway (2) it would needlessly provoke the British and make chances of getting international recognition even more impossible? I know, thinking can be hard sometimes but even I understand despite recovering from an all-nighter. What’s your excuse?
The fact that you take issue with the free soilers trying to prevent slavery from spreading to Kansas shows that you’re also morally bankrupt and will go to any length to justify secession. No matter what secession meant to the lives of millions of enslaved people.
Travis • Apr 21, 2010 at 11:25 am
Gen. Robert E. Lee freed his slaves prior to the War.
Gen. U.S. Grant did not free his slaves until 8 months after the Armistice.
The Confederate Constitution forbade the import of slaves into the CSA, not so the Federal Constitution slaves were still imported into the north during the civil war.
The oldest and largest slave markets in all the U.S. were in Northern States. Seems it was morally correct for the north to make money on slavery, the North wanted the slaves to be free in the south… not in their back yard.
Slavery became the whipping boy of the Northern government afraid losing power through the Kansas-Nebraska act.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on May 30, 1854. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported.
After the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters rushed in to settle Kansas to affect the outcome of the first election held there after the law went into effect. Pro-slavery settlers carried the election but were charged with fraud by anti-slavery settlers, and the results were not accepted by them.
The anti-slavery settlers held another election, however pro-slavery settlers refused to vote. This resulted in the establishment of two opposing legislatures within the Kansas territory.
Violence soon erupted, with the anti-slavery forces led by John Brown. The territory earned the nickname “bleeding Kansas” as the death toll rose.
President Franklin Pierce, in support of the pro-slavery settlers, sent in Federal troops to stop the violence and disperse the anti-slavery legislature. Another election was called. Once again pro-slavery supporters won and once again they were charged with election fraud.
As a result, Congress did not recognize the constitution adopted by the pro-slavery settlers and Kansas was not allowed to become a state.
Eventually, however, anti-slavery settlers outnumbered pro-slavery settlers and a new constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861, just before the start of the Civil War, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 21, 2010 at 12:09 am
Dwayne McKnight
I do have sympathy for the average soldier who genuinely fought to defend his home and family and I would fault no one who shot a government soldier raping and pillaging beyond the scope of fighting the insurrection. Not many of us know what it is like to face death, especially from the gruesome wounds caused by Civil War-era weaponry.
But the proclamation issued by Bob McDonnell explicitly asks us “to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present”
This is repugnant for two reasons. First, the Confederate leaders were a cabal of slave owners not deserving of special consideration. Their interests lay squarely in preserving slavery and their considerable wealth derived from slavery. We certainly do not remember the military prowess of German field marshals without acknowledging their role in war crimes. Why should we ignore the intimate connection between Confederate leaders slavery?
Second, slaves weren’t leaders, soldiers or even citizens (see Dred Scott v. Sandford on the last one). Not only does the proclamation fail to include slaves, it explicitly excludes them.
Sorry for the brevity, but I’m using this comment to procrastinate from a paper and I must end things here tonight.
Chris Amorosi
Former Collegian Columnist
Travis • Apr 20, 2010 at 10:04 pm
We have stricken the shackles from 4,000,000 human beings and brought all labourers to a common level, but not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by our iniquitous money system we have manipulated a system of oppression which, though more refined, is no less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery. – Horace Greeley
Equality BEFORE the Law
Not Equality BY the Law
Benjamin • Apr 20, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“It is, unfortunately, natural to try to forget the shames and sins of the past. Germany and Japan don’t like their actions during World War II being dredged up time and time again, the English don’t like to remember everything they’ve done to the Irish or the Welsh or the Scots and the North has pretty successfully excised its shameful history – why should the South be different?”
George already beat me to the punch, but I’ll bite. The German government has thoroughly repudiated its predecessor’s actions during WW2. Germans don’t like their actions being dredged up, but that’s understandable; the South, in contrast, actively maintains the Confederacy as a point of pride. Imagine if the Reichstag building today flew the Nazi flag and Germany held an annual Third Reich History Month.
(Indeed, far from even allowing Nazism to exist as a fringe movement, German law explicitly outlaws the display of Nazi insignia.)
Dwayne McKnight • Apr 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Chris –
I don’t mean to get into any heated argument, but I would say in response to your last comment that arguably, the war was not about slavery, but about sovereignty of the states (which the Confederacy advocated) over sovereignty of the federal government (which the Union favored, obviously).
This is of course not a denial that the South did indeed practice slavery, and it’s of course not a justification of slavery, as I see it to be one of, if not the most despicable institutions in American history. But would it not be disingenuous to assert that the North’s moral justification for war was to end slavery?
If one can look past the common historical anecdotes such as the fact that General Grant himself owned around 50 slaves at the onset of the war, than the Emancipation Proclamation itself might be evidence enough. This decree of course declared slavery illegal, however it did not declare slavery illegal in several “borderline” states so that the Union could count them to their ranks while still appeasing them. Apparently, according to your assertion, the North had such a moral problem with slavery such that it was willing to go to war with the South, yet it was willing to allow slavery in certain states in order to gain their allegiance. This doesn’t seem to add up, at least to me.
During the Civil War, the Confederacy not only stood for, among other things, states’ rights in opposition to federal sovereignty, but also a fierce determination to uphold these beliefs in the form of battlefield prowess (under the command of such brilliant generals as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and James Longstreet, to name only a very few) and raw, near-unending courage (such as when the Confederates held a considerable series of well-supplied Union troops using sticks and rocks after running out of munitions). All this considered, once again I do not deny the existence nor the despicable nature of the institution of slavery which undoubtedly existed through the South, but can one not praise the former attributes of the Confederacy while acknowledging the error of their ways concerning slavery?
Have not both great men and great ideals existed in times simultaneous with backwards social institutions such as slavery? Consider Thomas Jefferson, someone who not only lived in a time when slavery was condoned, but condoned it himself, in that he owned slaves. Was he not a great man with great ideals despite his notable flaw of condoning slavery (consider also that Jefferson was one that fully embraced the positive effects of rebellion; “The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”)
Having said all this, I cannot in any way, shape or form say that I am not happy that the Union won the war; it ultimately led to the demise of the ugly beast on the back of history that was African-American slavery, which is undeniably good. That being said, as I have posited, I believe one can find positive influences in at least some of the actions and ideals of the Confederacy (I know I do) without inherently subscribing to some of the more prejudiced social ideals of the time and place (I know I don’t).
To assert that anyone who takes to heart some of the more pure Confederate ideals should be ashamed by insinuating that they must necessarily hold, admittedly or otherwise, racist or otherwise morally unscrupulous ideals is a bit shortsighted, at least in my opinion.
I welcome your thoughts on the matter, however.
Billy Bearden • Apr 20, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Dear Mr Amorosi,
Looked it up = great phrase. Bill Oreilly would be amazed.
No, nothing cut and pasted, sorry. Came from years of study and research. All facts, all true. Question remains….
The Vatican did officially recognize the CSA, but thier armed forces were more of a spiritual nature, Pope Pius even went so far as to personally weave a handmade crown of thorns for Jefferson Davis.
The uses of the flag aforemention – I have photcopies of and anecdotes of each instance described, from the planting a Confederate Flag on the wall of Shuri Castle on Okinawa, to a Navy Captain with a Battleflag on his bridge, and a pilot in Korea with a Battleflag patch on his sleeve, to Marines marching thru Beirut in the 1950s under a Battleflag, to a firebase in Vietnam with a Battleflag on the pole, to the Battleflag at the downfall of the Berlin Wall. etc…
No George, while you may think that old conflicts are not envogue today, State’s Rights is a very hot topic – be it gay marraige, abortion, gambling, or even the current suit against mandated purchase of insurance – always has been – prostitution in Nevada, legalized marijuana in California, no MC helmets in SC and Indiana, bigamy in Utah, black codes in Illinois, etc…
George • Apr 20, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“Or, we can face both our pasts and move forward into a better future.”
Confederates were traitors..and had Lincoln dealt with these traitors like Truman dealt with the Nazis, we will not have any Confederate History Month…and as you see we dont have a Nazi History Month. However, it is time to move forward…the new Americans who came after World War II, white or otherwise, dont give a damn about your old conflicts.
Chris Amorosi • Apr 20, 2010 at 11:22 am
I suggest you look up what “tu quoque” means.
I’m not going to wade through something you probably copied and pasted from a traitor sympathizer website, but the general impression I got was that the north forced the south to maintain slavery for… well, you leave that ambiguous.
Instead, I’ll pose this simple argument that even you should understand (but will refuse to do so).
If the war wasn’t “really” about slavery, but:
Slavery kept the European powers from recognizing the Confederacy.
Slavery was used as a moral justification in the North (eventually).
Then why didn’t the South abandon slavery, get international recognition, and possibly survive?
Billy Bearden • Apr 20, 2010 at 9:13 am
Dear Mr Amorosi (could it possibly be Animosity?)
Sir, feel free to bash away at the things in life with which you have no idea about. While the infamous Klan March down Pennsylvania Ane in DC in the 1920s where hundreds of thousands of Klansmen sported thousands of US flags, and was headquartered in Indiana and places north, some of the most active Klans in the US are in places like New Jersey and West By God Virginia. Is there Klans in the South? Yes. but please use Windex instead of Rocks when casting dispersions from your house.
“Good ol boys flying the flag of racist treason” Ouch! Yeah ya got us on that one… Ever asked a Klansman why exactly the Official Flag of the Klan is the United States Stars and Stripes – having been adopted by them in December 1865 and used continuously thru today?
Confederate Flags have been used with Honor and Distinction since it’s creation. It has seen action against tyranny by African Freedom Fighters in Sudan, was at the fall of the Berlin Wall, Used by US forces in WW2, Korea, and Viet Nam, and has flown over our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been used to cheer on sport teams in Ireland, been waved by Sophia Loren and Shirley Temple, made popular in movies like Smokey and the Bandit, Dukes of Hazzard, and Matlock, and flies once a year over the graves of Confederate Soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery.
The United States Congress passed it. Ohio and Illinois ratified it. Lincoln in his 1st Inagrual Address openly supported it, and the South refused it.
The Corwin Amendment. This would have made slavery permanent and perpetual.
On July 25th, 1861, the US Congress passed a resolution stating the war was NOT over slavery, and that institution would remain until the south was retored. The south refused to return.
President Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation exempted Hampton Roads, New Orleans, and Tennessee, as well as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey from freeing slaves, while at the same time giving the Confederacy until January 1st 1863 to return to the Union and keep slavery, but the South refused.
Lincoln admitted West Virginia as a slave state.
At the Hampton Roads Peace Conference, Lincoln said if the South would return to the Union, slavery would remain. The South refused.
Please explain how the South’s refusal to accept ANY of these offers to retain slavery was a vile attempt at retaining slavery if slavery was as you say all the war was about
Billy Bearden • Apr 20, 2010 at 8:33 am
Dear Mr Robare,
This article is a breath of fresh air, in the fact that you (a Yankee) actually took some time out and shared the not so glorious past of the North, while providing some defense of us down here in the South.
Thanks !
I will offer the following, totally avoided (as you can well imagine for agenda’s sake) by the media.
Confederate History Month Proclamations are not the creation of Bob McDonnell, nor is it exclusive to Republicans.
Such Proclamations have been going on for nearly 20 years, and in fact, while centered in the South, a proclamation or 2 has been issued in other areas as well, such as in Ohio and California.
While both Repubs and Dems have been issuing them as State Govs, local Town and City Mayors, and County Commissions have participated too. Male and Female leaders, who are whites and blacks have placed thier names on them. (I am personally aware of 3 blacks and 2 women out of the hundreds that have been signed, but I am not Omnipotent and could be more ‘minorities’ in the mix)
One CHMP that comes to mind that blows the doors off of the whole “evil nasty racist republican bigot haters who hate and are nasty for this racist proclamation celebrating slavery” is the one signed on March 28th, 2002, by then Ga Gov Roy Barnes.
It was a few short simple paragraphs declaring that April 2002 was Confederate History Month in Georgia, and brought attention to a young girl named Emma Sansom. It also didn’t offer any fall on your sword apologies for slavery.
Gov Barnes was the top choice by the DNC for VP on the Kerry ticket, and had made several trips to places like Los Angeles to meet with the National Democrats. His ‘surprising’ loss at the polls in Nov 2002 killed any hopes of his future national politicking and the slot was then filled with future philanderer Edwards.
In fact, the only 3 places you will find any apologies for slavery in a CHMP is Va, Alabama, and Texas. Having aquired a few CHMPs myself, I can tell you these are for the sole purpose of recognizing the soldiers, the military units, and the families who sacrificed. Occaisionally one will mention a specific person – like Emma Sansom, or the Coca Cola Inventor John Sythe Pemberton, but politics, religion, sexual orientation, and eating habits are not included.
Had the media simply acknowleged that both parties, both genders, and both colors have issued the Confederate History Month Proclamations, it probably would have not been a story at all.
God Bless
Chris Amorosi • Apr 20, 2010 at 3:17 am
“Unlike in the South, where public schools were successfully integrated, white parents in Boston started sending their children to private schools – they figured the black parents would never be able to afford. Who commemorates that?”
Wrong. A federal judge (oh no, states’ rights!) accused some Mississippi school district of de facto segregation just this month:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/segregation-mississippi-public-schools-2010/story?id=10366223
And there’s nothing easy you can do about wealthy people sending their children to private schools to avoid crappy city public schools. That happens all over the country and is hardly exclusive to former Union states. Education reform is a topic beyond the scope of this humble comment, though.
Plus, as you conveniently ignore, no one today commemorates the Boston busing problems as a good thing.
“That was the Confederacy people like to remember and it was just as real as the Confederacy that existed to perpetuate the most disgusting thing one group of human beings can do to another.
If we in the North can live without our mythology ever being challenged, than we can let the Southerners live with theirs. Or, we can face both our pasts and move forward into a better future.”
The Confederacy was a vile attempt to protect southern slavery in its death throes. Glorifying the Confederacy and any of its followers, even the twits who valued vague constitutional principles over the fact that such “protections” kept millions in chains, is reprehensible.
Where has segregation survived to this day? The South. Where do the KKK and Christian Identity militias survive to present day? The South. Who was represented by unrepentant racists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms into the 21st century? The South.
For the record, I think Thanksgiving in the form taught by grade school glorifies religious bigots and Columbus Day glorifies imperialism. And even with the popular perception of both holidays you would be hard-pressed to find an average Massachusetts resident who supports burning witches or killing Indians. But in the South you can still find good ole boys like Bob McDonnell’s intended audience (hint: not Quakers, abolitionists or blacks) flying the flag of racist treason.
The North may hush up old shame but at least principles venerated by the Confederacy and its modern sympathizers ARE to be ashamed of here.
Chris Amorosi
Former Collegian Columnist