In Germany and Austria, it is a crime to express support for National Socialism; it is even problematic to honor soldiers who died fighting for Hitler.
But Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, whistling to dogs, has declared April 2010 "Confederate History Month."
These dogs are rabid. Neo-Confederate organizations, such as the 25,000-member United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the League of the South, and the Council of Conservative Citizens (sometimes called "the uptown Klan"), typically send out a nationwide alert to respond to what they call a "heritage violation." Although, to the general public, their slogan is "heritage not hate," anyone on the receiving end -- particularly if he is African-American -- will face a barrage of death threats, such as "I hope you are killed in the most violent, bloody way possible by another worthless jigaboo ni**er!!! WHITE POWER!!! HEIL HITLER!!!" In April 2009, when Auburn, Alabama Councilman Arthur Dowdell removed some Confederate flags from a local cemetery, white supremacist groups called for his arrest.
Neo-Confederates -- despite trying to intimidate a white Princeton University historian merely because he mentioned the neo-Confederates' "rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy" -- do not clearly and consistently disavow the white supremacist elements of their movement.
That would be like water trying to disavow hydrogen.
Indeed, in 1931 the United Daughters of the Confederacy "voted to see that the last meeting place of the Ku Klux Klan in Nashville, and from where the last ride was made, is suitably marked." You can even find UDC postcards bearing proud images of Klansmen on horseback, in full regalia. Contemporary neo-Confederates, such as Lunelle Siegel, will make excuses for, or even praise, the Klan of the 1860's or the Klan of the 1920's, saying that they were just defending "Southerners" (not pointing out that they mean "white Southerners").
Another claim neo-Confederates make is that the Civil War was not about slavery, the "proof" being that only 0.00000004% of Confederates ever even thought about owning slaves, and never mistreated any. Despite that fact --the Civil War was actually caused by Lincoln's raising the mint julep tax -- the United Daughters of the Confederacy have wondered "whether emancipation has been a blessing to our country," or whether it "has introduced evils that in the end will be more terrible than slavery." This is a strange statement, since, according to The United Daughters of the Confederacy Magazine in 1989, slavery was not too bad: the worst victims were "the crews of the slave ships."
Oddly, Virginia's ordinance of secession states quite clearly what the war was about, as it laments the "oppression of the Southern slaveholding states." Alabama's ordinance of secession states that "it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slave holding States of the South" in order to form a new government. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, said in 1861 that "African slavery...was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
But truth does not always out. The Auburn council members, probably barraged with thousands of calls and letters from angry neo-Confederates, condemned their colleague, who apologized. And the African-American response? Black Congressman Artur Davis -- hoping to be elected governor of Alabama, and falsely equating "white votes" with "neo-Confederate votes," as Howard Dean once did -- joined the chorus criticizing Dowdell.
The solution? One neo-Confederate wrote that an article criticizing the Confederacy made him want to "hunt [the author] down, and shoot him like the dog he is." Another neo-Confederate suggested that "we can hit this bigot where it hurts ... in the pocket book," and launched a campaign to get the "heritage violator" fired from his job.
Neo-Confederates are so bold that they do not use aliases, so we know who they are, and where they work. Just ask yourself, "What would Jeb do?"
What is heartening about McDonnell's insult is that, for once, we are forcing the neo-Confederates back. Usually it's the other way around, as when Jonesborough, Tennessee in 2009 allowed Confederate soldiers to be honored in the town's Veteran Memorial Park -- and the Sons of Confederate Veterans still boycotted the town. Because appeasement doesn't work.
So let us continue our march to the sea.
This is Confederate History Month.
Views on Confederates, circa 2001
GOP Governors Shouldn't Be Lincoln Themselves to Confedera-philia
http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm
Black Confederate Veterans - Fact or Fiction?
http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm
You also need to provide some evidence of this "destruction of records," which seems a bit unnecessary to shore up the mantra that the war was fought over slavery--given that the Confederates of the time said they were fighting the war over slavery.
One of your sites refers readers to "The Sierra Times". On this website, one respected neo-Confederate praised the Ku Klux Klan, saying that they only protected women and children. So much for your "scholarship".
You say you fled Tennessee, were you being mistreated here ? Were you born here ? Were you given an education here ? Did we hold you back ? I bet you must be doing quit well in spite of your poor treatment by Tennesseans. Or Sir , Do you LIE ?
I fled Tennessee after a campaign of death threats against me and against people viewed as being my supporters (many of whom also turned on me, I suppose thinking it would put them in the clear) orchestrated by neo-Confederate organizations.
In one version of the essay, I was going to point out the neo-Confederate tactic you are now employing: of issuing death threats, and then claiming that the person who says he is receiving death threats is lying about the death threats. You did this also with Arthur Dowdell.
The same tactics are used by neo-Nazis vis-a-vis the Holocaust.
1. Lincoln, in his first inaugral address, repeated that he supported the then pending constitutional amendment that would have allowed slavery in perpetuity. It was a play to keep the southern hotheads in but did not suceed.
2. Lincoln did not free any slaves owned in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware nor those of his wife in his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
3. Grant threatened to resign if Lee was charged with treason. The only indictment for treason ever brought was against Jefferson Davis and that were dropped.
4. Grant and Chamberlain (the hero of little round Top) saluted the surrendering Confederate army at Appomatax, forbade their Union soldiers from celebration and ordered immediate rations to be issued to the rebels.
5. FDR in the 1930s saluted the Confederate and Union soldiers at the Gettysburg National Park
It must really bug Farley that the Confederate flag is on coins of the US such as the 1925 half dollar (Stone Mountain) and the only active Klansman (retired) in the Democrat Sen, Byrd.
But you seem to be saying that because the Confederate criminals were not regarded as criminals 70 or 140 years ago, we should celebrate them today.
Not only is this a sick, and sickening, argument, I am sure there were millions of people 70 or 140 years ago who would have fought for the opportunity to make sure ancestors were treated the way they treated others.
You make everything sound so simple, when the Civil War was no doubt THE most complex political, economic and most importantly, MORAL crisis this country has ever faced.
Citing actions of Lincoln, Grant and FDR (imperfect and complex humans, all products of their specific environments and times) gives NO credence and is certainly NO defense to supporting McDonnell's extremely offensive "proclamation".
Massive upheavals in social conscience and more importantly, individual attitudes to major changes, simply do not happen overnight - they take decades to become the "norm"...just like it took centuries for humanity to work through and finally embrace the idea of democracy, instead of tyrannical monarchy.
There are many missteps along the way to truth.
It took 144 long years for society to evolve enough for women to finally get the vote.
What we're seeing here are death throes of the miserable, last remaining remnants of ingrained, Southern bigotry and prejudice. As we witnessed, the general collective enlightenment of the majority rained down swift, harsh judgment upon McDonnell's head.
We have finally evolved enough as a society that we will NOT tolerate such blatant, ugly, dangerous perversion.
If slavery had not been THE core reason for secession of all the southern states, it would have been a mere footnote, or at most a few paragraphs, in his work. Instead, it forms the very basis of the foundation of his book.
“States’ rights” may have been the official, overarching reason for secession, but at its very core, it was simply the means to defend, justify and protect “property” rights...the continuation and extension of slavery.
* Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis Chapter 1
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Confederate_Government/Part_I
Dred Scott, the (in)famous Supreme Court case based on slave holding states’ “rights”, was the catalyst and final spark in the outbreak of the Civil War.
“Although [Chief Justice] Taney believed that the decision represented a compromise that would settle the slavery question once and for all by transforming a contested political issue into a matter of settled law, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands...”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
* code for political statement
But they fought for slavery. No slavery, no war, it's just that simple.
Their cause was not noble, it was as bad as the Nazi's.
Unvarnished truth, public knowledge and open discussion are the only cures for this and other great evils. Thank you.
He never celebrated his service in the Air Force of Nazi Germany. Sometimes I feel as if I'm betraying his memory by mentioning it.
So why has it become fashionable to do the equivalent thing in the United States? From elected leaders no less?
In fact, you do a great service by your honesty. I’m SURE your grandfather would have encouraged you to tell his story. I have absolutely no doubt that he would be very proud of you for your courage.
These are exactly the kinds of stories we need to hear and remember.
Thank you.
Yeah, he didn't like talking about the war... most of what I got came second-hand from my father. I saw a photo album of his once with some pictures he took from the villages he was in. IIRC, he was posted in Sardinia and taught the Italians how to use radio equipment properly.
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina".
*****This information was taken directly from the Wikipedia site. All anyone need do is google: U. S. Civil War" and everything you ever wanted to know about it will be revealed.****** For those of you interested in the truth, that is. Thank you Dr. Farley, for one of the most cogent articles I've ever read on this ugly matter and for shining the light of truth on the real "enemies of democracy".
What is odd is that you would include this bit in your argument, as it contradicts the point you are attempting (and failing) to make: the ordinance states that "oppression" of the Southern states was a cause of secession. "Slaveholding" is a qualifier used to denote *which states* were being oppressed. Slavery itself is, of course, not cited as the cause for secession.
Actually? Here, in the real world? Where words have meaning? Secession is definitely, precisely and alone the cause Virginia cited.
The wording selected might have been (but wasn't) "oppression of the Southern magnolia-bedecked states" or "oppression of the Southern obscure-principle-of-federal-governance-loving states" or even just "oppression of the Southern states." It was, however, "oppression of the Southern slaveholding states" and so, the matter at issue was slaveholding. Twisting words beyond their plain meanings and implications in context neither defeats nor detracts one iota from Dr. Farley's thesis. Nice try, all the same.
“Oppression”, in and of itself, is an ACT, not a cause. Oppression is never used in a generic sense - it begs the question of and always implies a specific reason for such action.
The ordinance did not state some abstract, general oppression of the “Southern states” - it very specifically said “Southern SLAVEHOLDING states”. That one word is key and unequivocally states the reason for secession. If slaveholding was not the principal factor in secession, it would never have been mentioned.
The SCV are today mounting campaigns against the NCAA (yes, the basketball organization), NASCAR (car racing!), and school districts, city administrators and others for "heritage violations" because they object to the presence of the Confederate flag. http://www.scv.org/heritage.php
What's even more sad is that more politically prominent men and women than McDonnell have kowtowed to these groups. http://www.blackcommentator.com/274/274_clinton_udc.html
Zero tolerance, I say.
As U.S. Representative Clyburn, SC stated once, "silence indicates consent!"