DavidtheDuke says:

How can one openly celebrate the confederacy? It stood for sedition from the government and, uh, slavery. It did. Some like to paint it as a way to be free from the government, but I guess blacks don’t count as being able to be free too?

simongiln says:

Funny how George Washington is hailed as one of the greatest presidents in American history–completely ignoring the issue of slavery–but the moment anyone brings up the confederacy, the *only* issue worth bringing up is slavery.

How about the simple right of secession? How about the simple right not to have the government order us to kill our own family members? The civil war was *not* all about slavery.

Whats more, Jim Crow laws were partially the result of the civil war. Had a peaceful solution been reached (as has been done in all other countries), the south might not have had so much of a chip on its shoulder, and might not have spend 100 years taking it out on black people.

Dropping the a-bomb on Japan was not a simple Right vs Wrong issue, even if it ended with the result we wanted. The same goes for the civil war.

Looking at the civil war as a simple Right vs Wrong issue is blatantly obtuse. Slavery was Wrong, but the civil war and the confederacy wasn’t all about slavery, any more than George Washington was all about slavery. Anyone telling you differently is simply trying to whitewash history.

All that being said, I wouldn’t dream of living in a modern Confederacy.

nolimit662 says:

I’d like to start a debate over Black History Month…..Like why should we have one……….we don’t have White History Month, or Italian History Month, etc.

Howard Beal says:

hey how about Germany have a Third Reich History Month
but leave out
The Holocaust
Rape of Belgium
Bombing England
Submarine’s sinking civilian ships
Invasion of Poland

this list is going to be way to long, ya best to leave it out of Third Reich History Month and hey the Allies did some bad stuff too thats war ;~)

RSweeney says:

Mikiev,

What happens if and when the “consent of the governed” is lost, if the covenant supporting that government is broken? The God given right to dissolve government and reform another still exists.

This in no way excuses the Confederate states, who were pretty focused on retention of slavery.

Read the articles of secession of the various confederate states, the only common element and for most, the ONLY element in their decision was slavery, though Texas was concerned about the lack of security at the Mexican border and lack of protection from Indian attacks.

mikiev says:

#9: “The God given right to dissolve government and reform another still exists.”

I’m not religious, so the “God” you cite has little meaning to me.

What you call a god-given right, others call sedition and/or treason.

That is the problem with being born into a country decades, or centuries, after it was founded – any desire for a complete re-thinking of the “social contract” is viewed by many as sedition.

I am frequently amused by all of the people who demand that school children should be -required- to recite the pledge of allegiance every day – while I was never required to recite it during my 20-years in the US Navy.

When I enlisted/re-enlisted in the Navy I took an oath which included the statement that I would “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic…”

There was never any requirement for me to “pledge allegiance” to a flag, or state that my country was “…one nation, under god, indivisible…”

Rufus says:

I wonder if this discussion will ever expand to include the topic of present-day slavery.

Somehow I doubt it. Too many American businesses are profiting from debt slaves, sex slaves and agricultural slaves.

MikeN says:

If you think the Civil War is about slavery, then how do you explain that without secession and the Civil War, the South had enough power to block restrictions on slavery, and the 13th Amendment would never had passed? Even today, you can’t pass it without at least some votes from slaveholding states.

mentor972 says:

This video is highly edited and has tons of jump cuts. There are cuts that splice two parts of different sentences together. It makes me wonder what was cut out of these conversations.

Peter L. Winkler says:

Did you know that Pat Buchanan lost an uncle at Auschwitz?

He fell out of his tower.

B. Dog says:

Yeah, it’s all pretty cut and dried, eh? A source that this blog links to mentioned that before 1915 the history books were very different with regard to the fact that the ding-danged English started the civil war. History — learn it or repeat it, slave.

Cursor_ says:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

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. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Slavery was the heart of the succession. Spoken from the very mouth of the Vice-Present of the CSA.

The Confederate should be taught the same way as we teach about The Nazis. As a period of time filled with diabolic men set upon destroying freedom and equality for all humans.

There is no difference between the hatred of the African slaves or the European Jews. Hence the same disgust should be used with the CSA as with the Third Reich.

Cursor_

whyshouldliexpectmorer formthesetards? says:

So instead of simply hijacking the month by passing out copies of Frederick Douglass’ books and educating people under the umbrella of “Confederate History Month”, they try to suppress it. Suppress instead of transform, that’s the way modern libtards work. Showing people the horrors of slavery while claiming to be participating in an official program would have been creative and subversive, but it’s more important to make a big show and try to link modern Republicans with slavery.

And of course it would be pointless to point out that 90% of the slaves in the New World were not in the United States, but in the Caribbean and South America. Equally pointless to point out that most of those slaves died within 2 years. But they were enslaved by Portuguese and Spaniards…and Non-Americans who do bad things are exempt. How many slaves in the Arab world? At least hundreds of thousands, but it’s not PC to care about them. They offer no angle to attack people to the right of DU bloggers.

I’ve yet to figure out why John allows his blog to spew such obvious and tired leftist propaganda when he himself seems far less liberal and far less partisan.

Hmeyers says:

I think whenever politicians do something controversial like this they are trying to distract you from other things they are doing like selling out your jobs/country/right to multinational corporations.

It is a diversion. To be ignored.

Just remember: only the rich and corporations owned slaves.

Corporations are just as much of a threat to your freedom today as 200 years ago.

BigBoyBC says:

When I first heard of the proposed confederate history month,I though it was silly and a waste of time.

But, after reading some of the ignorant posts on this subject here, I’m thinking we actually need it.