'Confederate History Month' Declared By Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell has declared April to be "Confederate History Month," the first time in 8 years that such a proclamation has been issued in the state.

In the statement, McDonnell says that the Confederate history "should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered," and that its leaders "fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today."

Quick Poll

Should Virginia and other states recognize 'Confederate History Month'?

No, not at all.

Maybe, if they do it objectively.

Yes, they should.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Here's a portion of the statement from McDonnell's website:

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.

McDonnell's two Democratic predecessors -- Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- refused to issue such proclamations, the Washington Post reports.

"Republican governors George Allen and Jim Gilmore issued similar proclamations. But in 2002, Warner broke with their action, calling such proclamations, a 'lightning rod' that does not help bridge divisions between whites and blacks in Virginia."

Comments

[levibatgirl]

07:05 AM on 05/03/2010

Yes we kicked your arses for good reason.

Stop picking the scab.
No do overs.

[agent2]

12:45 AM on 04/15/2010

Forget what you think you know about what the current establishment calls the Civil War, eventhough it wasn't. The very first lie and deception is calling the conflict a "Civil War". The first casualty in a war is always the truth. The Confederacy did not seek to overthrow the government, but only to regain its' independence respecting State and Individual sovereignty like before the Federal government was created. The Southern States' decision to regain their independence was well within their rights, and the Constitution was on their side. The States created the Federal government with specific delegated powers, not the other way around. All the authority not specifically delegated to the Federal government belonged to the States themselves and to the people. If you let a strong central government decide for itself what the limits of its power are, eventually it will decide their are no limits to its power. That's why we are in the situation we are in today! The outcome of that war made everyone slaves and subjects of a powerful central government and eventually the elite private banking interests. That's right, and the people's labor is now taxed, and the people are more or less collateral to the private owners of the Federal Reserve who charge our government interest for the money they print out of thin air. The collectivists used the slavery issue as a propaganda tool. Everyone is a slave now, but just doesn't realize it.

[4TJefferson]

12:39 PM on 04/11/2010

Of course Baggers and goopers are for "Confederate History Month." Duh! Of course Baggers and gopers are for leaving out the word "slavery" in the declaration from McDonnell. Duh! It is no wonder why Steele/RNC types have to spend time at lesbian strip clubs in Los Angeles. Duh!

[peabodyad]

01:18 PM on 04/10/2010

McDonnel delivered a striking blow on his own political future. His central phenomenon was based on the ideologies of his predecessors George Allen and Jim Gilmore, who both while governors declared April as Confederate History Month. The sad thing about Allen's bigotry is that he himself was a Jew not even White, was putting down another minority race, given the persecution of Jews by Nazi Germany. His bigotry caused him to lose his senate seat to Jim Webb, when he used the racist word Macaca to the Indian photographer Mark Garanger. This bigotry also caused him a run for the presidency.

History repeats itself and may darken any further political aspirations for Governor McDonnel, for declaring April as Confederate History month. Not paying respects to African Americans as human beings was a deliberate omission and a direct affront to black people within the diaspora of North America. I find it hard to perceive how Governor McDonnel, a law school graduate from Pat Robinson's Regent University in Virginia Beach, who should have known that the Civil War was fought to liberate slaves from the southern states, could have made such a blatant mistake. Since President Obama and the NAACP leadership in Richmond have accepted Governor McDonnel's apology, will not change the perception of all African Americans who helped elect him, now that he has shown his true color. I'm sure that Abraham Lincoln who united the country, turned over in his grave for McDonnel still trying divide the country.

[landshark63]

11:05 PM on 04/10/2010

your post just goes to show you have no clue what the Civil War was about. the war didnt start to free slaves nor was that the purpose. Lincoln himself said he had no intentions of getting rid of slavery in the south. that kinda kills yours and NASW's theory about the war. you both should do more homework. the fed gov at the time was over stepping its bounds because they wanted to make it so any new states joining the union after Lincolns election could not be slaves states instead of the states making there own choice about the issue. this was a CLEAR violation of the 10th amendment. no matter how you slice or dice it slavery was part but NOT the main cause of the Civil War. just because some people voiced it was thats just not the facts. take this into consideration, throughout history the winners have always rewritten history as they see fit. there is nothing different between then and the time of the Civil War. the north has fed you history as they want you to see it. now that people want to tell the correct story you want to get uppity and bitch about it. the fact is, the truth hurts and people like the two of you cant come to grips with the truth. i find it funny that the first legally recognized slave in the US was owned by a black man.

[Martin Houde]

10:33 PM on 04/11/2010

Lincoln did not try to invade the South to free slaves, at least not initially. He did that to preserve the Union.

But it did come as a most important objective quite rapidly. Only, he did not want his wish to be made public to fast, because he feared that the war effort would have been less. So, he waited, until Gettysburg (a significant victory for him) to announce the end of slavery in every state.

Admittedly, blocking the slavery for the new states was the first step in invalidating slavery in the South. But the Civil War changed that.

If the Union broke the 10th Amendment, the states broke the 1st Article, Section 10, and admittedly the Union was breaking the 1st Article, Section 9, subsection 2 (Writ of Habeas Corpus) by allowing slavery.

Habeas Corpus is in direct contradiction with slavery. In my mind, the constitution blocked slavery. That is, if you consider blacks as human beings. Even if the founding fathers considered them property, they considered them human beings.

Anyway, slavery is wrong, and the US had to go through a Civil War to end it, way later than most Occidental nations.

[LL2U]

03:58 PM on 04/14/2010

It is a pleasure to have another person that knows something of history. Anthony Johnson was the father of African slavery in the English colonies and what do ya know, ole Anthony was black. Happened about 1653.

[Ergon]

12:07 PM on 04/10/2010

I'm a progressive but feel that Southerners have every right to commemorate their history. The reasons for the Civil War were a lot more complex than just of abolition of slavery, and as a history buff, hate it being sanitized or misrepresented.
And with America's sad history of racism, I feel the best way to resolve it is debate it honestly, and not suppress it.

[langej]

10:35 AM on 04/10/2010

Hey, history months are Always racists.
There is a month for Black history, Hispanic history, Native American history
There is no month for White history, Germanic history or Native European history.
If Confederates want a history month, let them have it -- or do we only want to study "nice" history.

[yrc]

11:19 PM on 04/12/2010

I agree with you. Whites need there own month to.

[FBatRNC]

09:25 AM on 04/14/2010

What about Columbus day?

[Johnji]

12:47 PM on 04/09/2010

Hmmm. Let's see. Why does the Ku-Klux-Klan always display the confederate flag with their own flag every time they make an appearance?

[billtgh]

02:05 PM on 04/09/2010

Why do Democrat Progressives wear Che t-shirts?

[hoham]

02:11 PM on 04/09/2010

We don't. Next question.

[Jo Le Tiel]

08:03 PM on 04/09/2010

No they don't - it's usually dumb teenagers. Last time I saw a Che shirt was in a famous photo of a cocktail party in Westport, worn by one of the AIG guys, and I ain't lying.

[LL2U]

05:23 PM on 04/10/2010

They don't always fly the St. Andrews Cross but they always fly the federal flag. Hmmm.

[Johnji]

12:45 PM on 04/09/2010

When I was in the military I got the chance to meet many so-called confederate admirers that wanted to have a day like Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell suggests. Each and every one of them told me they hated the fact that Blacks and Hispanics in this country are getting away with far too many benefits. When I asked them to clarify on those benefits, they mention educational, financial, and civil liberties. They also preferred segregation. No matter how much they sugar-coat it, they just want to continue the segregation laws of the 60's and are in fact racists who can't handle that minorities are doing a better job in this country once they are educated. It's okay for us minorities to defend and sacrifice for this country (Blacks and Hispanics are the largest group of minorities in today's military), but God forbid if we get any benefits. The reason we need to have some priviledges is because without these civil rights, the white upper-class would never let us achieve any position of power. Just look at the hate surrounding Obama, Sotomajor, etc. They are not perfect but they are far better than anyone I've seen in the past.

[saintjule]

04:18 PM on 04/10/2010

Ditto

[billtgh]

09:27 AM on 04/09/2010

After perusing many comments, I notice that most of you don't 'get it'. As history shows, the Confederacy seceded from the Union because they were fed up with the Union's unconstitutional attempts to control their affairs. My Governor, Bob McDonnell, by proclaiming Confederate History Month, is making a statement against today's federal government. The Commonwealth of Virginia is fed up with the Fed's obvious unconstitutional attempts to SOCIALIZE our free democracy!

Unfortunately, many people are so shallow and unlearned, they immediately play the slavery/race card. SAD! There is so much power behind this simple proclamation.

Don't you people understand that the bipartisan federal government is slowly, but surely, socializing our Great USA into slavery?

Don't you American black persons, who have fought and struggled so long and hard for the freedoms you finally have achieved in this day and age to equally compete in the free market, realize you are being fitted with a new set of shackles by a black African non-Christian Muslim?

Doesn't it greatly upset you, after working so long in the free market place to gain respect and admiration for your skills, you now have to redistribute your earnings to people who are too lazy to hold down a job and would rather be subsidized by the government, collecting food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare, and free health care?

FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS! Join Virginia in our fight against the Abomi-nation!

[hoham]

01:10 PM on 04/09/2010

Obama's not a Muslim. But even if he was so what? Obama's not African. If he was that would mean he is ineligible to be President.

[Cat-hi]

02:36 AM on 04/13/2010

If he ain't a Muslim, he must be an Atheist and he has never proved to be an American either. Also I am so sorry to inform you of this but he may be a terrorist, he is down-sizing our arms and our protection against forces of evil and making buddies out of our ememies. Somebody better wake up before we become a socialist nation, I am praying we can fix what is happening but we need to be aware. CLINTON ruined a dress OBAMA is ruining our nation....

[NASW]

02:25 PM on 04/09/2010

"As history shows, the Confederacy seceded from the Union because they were fed up with the Union's unconstitutional attempts to control their affairs. "

Incorrect. The original states seceded because the Election returns of 1860 showed an irreversible national trend toward free-soilism and eventual abolition of slavery. Southern elites knew that if they wanted to keep their "peculiar institution" they would have to secede. This is a historical fact as borne out by the writings of John Calhoun and Jeff Davis and Alexander Stevens. It is borne out by the wording of the secession documents.

What should we expect from someone who believes Obama is a muslim?

[unreconstructedpatriot]

12:14 AM on 04/09/2010

We live in a world that has grown so ignorant of its past that we now rant against what we don't understand. The major concern in the War between the States was the right of the state to make its own decisions about tariffs (70% paid by the South and 30% for the North - these tariffs were used primarily for the North's benefit.), how to settle the issue of slavery (the South knew that slavery was a dying cause but it was going to take a gradual approach so that the economy and society would be destroyed overnight - as opposed to Lincoln's Plan - free the slaves and sail them back to Africa.), and to Constitutionally Maintain the power that belongs to EACH individual state as a bulwark to an OVER INTRUSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that was taking power unto itself beyond what has any right to do. As has been done since then and continues to do today. BTW - the North provided all the ships to bring the slaves to the US and Northern bankers made most of the money on these "transactions" - where's the outrage over the North's part in that and its unconstitutional abuse of denying the South its right to leave and form its own nation?

[NASW]

01:44 AM on 04/09/2010

The Tariff issue is just one a a variety of issues of tension between North and South - all of those issues caused by, you guessed it, Slavery. The issue of Tariffs was more of a crisis in the 20s and 30s.

Lincoln never had an policy for freeing slaves and sending them all back to Africa.

As far as States Rights - Both the North and the South used the power of the Federal government when convenient and claimed States Rights when alternatively convenient. The philosophy that Southern States were these underdog champions of States Rights is just an utter fallacy that is not borne out by the documented history.

Sure, New England made money off the Slave Trade, but that very same trade was abolished in 1808.

There is no clear argument to be made that secession as executed by the South was legal or that the North's troop call up to coerce them to stay was legal either. Clearly, you've made your decision, but the legal framework is not on the most solid ground. You can point to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions all you want, but only two states passed such resolutions. There were many Founding Fathers who would argue that secession in the fashion of South Carolina was not constitutional, first because the process for leaving the Union was not spelled out in the same Constitution and that the Union is a contract that can only be properly broken by vote of involved parties and

[LL2U]

05:33 PM on 04/10/2010

"Such seperation must be effected by colonization, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
A. Lincoln
Springfield, Il.
26 June, 1857

[agent2]

01:02 AM on 04/15/2010

Easy... read the Declaration of Independence for the principles our government was supposed to be founded on...

[JudgeMoonbox]

10:57 PM on 04/09/2010

"The major concern in the War between the States was the right of the state to make its own decisions about tariffs"

So which side was Louisiana on? You know they were dominated by sugar planters who wanted the tariff to protect them from Caribbean and Brazilian competition.

"Constitutionally Maintain the power that belongs to EACH individual state as a bulwark to an OVER INTRUSIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"

In the context of the runup to the Civil War, that means the Fugitive Slave Law. Do you have any documents that show that it was the South that opposed this intrusion?

[searingxheretic]

10:36 PM on 04/08/2010

This whole topic is somewhat ridiculous. A lot of confederate soldiers fought for many different reasons, the defense of slavery was not the only issue at hand. If it is local history for many Virginians, why not honor it? If a disclaimer is required to make April Confederate History Month, then I would like a disclaimer placed on Black History month. African Americans have their month, why can't confederates?

[hoham]

11:07 PM on 04/08/2010

What? I'm completely flummoxed. Black History Month = Confederate History Month. And how would the Black History disclaimer read? I can think of a few disclaimers for Confederate History Month, but they would be kind of a joke.

[Tlanice]

09:41 AM on 04/10/2010

I would LOVE to know what that disclaimer would read. I guess Women's History Month (March) and Native American Month (November...b/c of thxgiving?) all need disclaimers as well.

What would the BHM disclaimer say?

[johnstrom]

07:20 PM on 04/08/2010

I lived in Louisiana much of my life. For the most part, it was reactionary, insular, casually bigoted, and proud of its ignorance.

The Confederacy was composed of traitors who got their asses kicked by the Union. It's been almost a century and a half since the South lost, but they still consider themselves occupied territories. For my part, I'm happy to treat them so.

[binksmom85]

12:33 AM on 05/01/2010

Fanned; having grown up in the north, but spent the last 2 decades in the south, I agree with your assessment

[Jo Le Tiel]

06:00 PM on 04/08/2010

Over half a million Americans died in the Civil War. What's to celebrate+ Party down, Bob.

[hoham]

05:42 PM on 04/08/2010

Well, this looks like it's working great for Virginia tourism. SO much better than "Virginia Is for Lovers."

[Imago]

12:06 AM on 04/17/2010

LOL Fanned.

[cimbri]

05:18 PM on 04/08/2010

Have the blacks in America considered that if not for the South, there would be no blacks here at all? Would they rather be in Africa? Nothing wrong with Africa, just asking. My people came from Germany who have a higher standard of living than the average American. So if you look at it relatively, the blacks in America have one up on me.

[NASW]

05:29 PM on 04/08/2010

Have you considered that Blacks were the only people enslaved in America yet we have sizable Asian, Latin, European and African populations? Gee, how did those people get here if they weren't enslaved and later freed? Golly?

You're statement is ridiculous.

[landshark63]

05:32 PM on 04/08/2010

guess you forget about the Chinese out west building the railroads that were pretty much slaves. or the fact that there most certainly were WHITE slaves that were indentured servants that earned there way to the US by becoming slaves to whomever paid there way here? you really should brush up on your history.

[LL2U]

09:19 PM on 04/08/2010

I believe the book,"They Were White and They Were Slaves", the untold history of the enslavement of whites in early America by Michael A. Hoffman would open your closed eyes a bit. Hoffman is a former reporter for the NY bureau of the Associated Press and former director of the California-based Institute for Historical Review.

[janmarbol]

06:07 PM on 04/08/2010

@cimbri:
O M G! you're kidding right? So that gives the US the right to go to any sovereign nation and enslave their people because... um, because WHY? Let me get this straight now.. because the country enslaving people it is 'better' than the country where the slaves came from?

[cimbri]

08:58 PM on 04/08/2010

Jan, don't be absurd. You know that no one is in favor of slavery. We didn't go there and trade in flesh, you can blame that on the slave traders, a trade that has existed for thousands of years. In fact, not one person on this board can say he does not have some slaves in his ancestry. Germans were captured and enslaved by Romans. Can I sue Italy for what happened to my ancestors? This bashing of the CSA is just another part of the victimization culture, and the attempted extortion of people with a Western ancestry in the USA.