A Holiday to Memorialize the Confederacy? WTF?
In an era that some are trying to bill at post-racial, South Carolina state senator Robert Ford is seeking to take us way back to the post-Reconstruction epoch. Ford, who is of African American descent, is trying to get a bill passed that requires South Carolina to give workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day.
This gives a whole new context to the term House Negro.
In a senate bill that won initial approval last week in a subcommittee, Ford wants to force South Carolina county and municipal governments to give workers a paid holiday off on May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama already celebrate a Confederate Memorial Day.
In a Rodney King-like "can't we all get along" spirit, years ago Ford pushed a bill that would make Dr. King's birthday and a dead Rebels day separate but equal holidays.
"Every municipality and every citizen of South Carolina, should be, well, forced to respect these two days and learn what they can about those two particular parts of our history," Ford said last week.
I already know way too much about the Confederacy part of that history.
A little more than a year ago, I was in South Carolina covering Barack Obama's presidential election. The Statehouse lobby features the Orders of Secession engraved in marble, portraits of Confederate generals look down on state legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag still flies outside.
No one has convinced far too many of the state's white citizens that the Civil War was lost and that the descendants of freed slaves are now their equals. And I am anything but convinced that a holiday honoring the soldiers who died to keep the state's blacks enslaved will help old times be soon forgotten.
But I do suspect that Ford is trying to convince a bunch of the state's white citizens that he's a good Negro. Just last month, the senator pushed a bill that would outlaw dirty words in his state, making it a felony with a penalty of up to five years behind bars for using the F-word, among others. First Amendment be damned!
It was just a year ago, remember, when Democrat Ford backed Sen. Hillary Clinton, for the Democratic presidential nomination over Obama, because every "Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because [Obama's] black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."
Lawdy, lawdy. Guess who just announced that he's running for governor of South Carolina? Do you think that in a post-racial era, President Barack Obama should endorse gubernatorial candidate Robert Ford--just because he's a fellow African American?
Cyber Columnist Monroe Anderson is an award-winning journalist who penned op-ed columns for both the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. You can read his blog at http://www.monroeanderson.typepad.com/
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Left right doesn't get it , we were a country but not a nation , sectional differences abound in that period. The constitution protected slavery. But it didn't protect native Americans from being slaughtered by NON SOUTHERN federal troops after the war. Take a big breath of guilt my northern brothers.
Why can't we remember lessons learned from our own history without demonizing the people involved? The Civil War is part of our nation's history. It is what we were to what we have become. To honor people who served their country while agreeing or not agreeing with the issues should be the point of the holiday. Many Southern soldiers fought because of states' rights having never owned a slave. History shows that a minority of people in the South were slave owners. However, when the war began, men joined for the love of their country and loyalty to their homeland. Did all that fought in Veitnam agree with the policy? Did men in WWII sign up ALL agreeing with the purpose? Soldiers have fought for their homeland down through the centuries. Can we not honor their service to their country? If you look at the Civil War as just a war over slavery, then you are not looking at the actual facts. Robert E. Lee fought for his homeland "Virginia". When asked to serve for the North by the president, he stated that he could not betray his home. He was not fighting for slavery. He was one of the first people to take communion in his Episcopal church with a black man. To honor service to ones country shouldn't be judged by the country's political views. As a wife to a Vietnam Veteran who was drafted, I honor his service;not the politics. Why can't South Carolina?
Check
http://en.
Ford has good intentions, he worked for Martin Luther King Jr. and as senator to remove the Confederate Flag from the state house. I believe he is sincere in his attempt to create more understanding. The holiday would also be coupled with Martin Luther King day.
See Monroe Anderson's Profile
Hekerui, how do you know Ford's intentions? ;-) More importantly, how would memorializing the Confederacy foster more understanding? The Confederates were out to destroy the United States so that they could continue that Peculiar Institutio
He stated his intentions to the Associated Press - that he is sincere is my personal opinion based on this: it would be hard to come from MLK follower to friend of the Confederacy, right? Of course it could all be done for his quest to become governor. This recent article here talks about Ford and the Confederates and I agree, the history is muddled, but generally I think you're right: http://huf
The Confederacy was not out to destroy the United States. And what people tend to forget, is the fact that the Southern economy was baised on slave labor. Let's just say for arguments sake, that the South was fighting to preserve slavery. It would only be to save the NATION from falling on its face. The South was the economy...
And, if slaves were not paid, why were so many able to buy theirs, and a lot of times their families freedom? There's more to the history than what most people want to know...
For those of you who know history only as it is taught in state schools and universities, who get your "news" from television, who cannot write without using profanity, and who have been brainwashed and propagandised through the years, why don't you thoughtfully and carefully read the article on the link below?
http://www
The Civil War was fought to prevent the secession of the southern states. The sole reason the southern states seceded was to protect slavery. This is historical fact: after South Carolina seceded, it sent commissioners to every other southern state to convince them to join South Carolina. The only argument raised by these commissioners or discussed by any of the southern state legislatures was how to protect slavery. So what we have here is a war fought by southerners to protect slavery, a war fought against a legally elected federal government, just because slaveholders did not like the new president. Modern Republicans --- whose core constituency is based in the south --- would call this treason. It was.
Read your history. The sole reason was not just about slavery. It was about states' rights. Look at the data. Only a minority of people in the South had slaves. But the majority loved and fought for their homeland. Don't you remember the quote in Ken Burn's documentary on the Civil War about how the two sides talked at night? The Southern soldier told the Northern soldier that he was fighting "cause ya'll are down here". He was protecting his homeland. He wasn't fighting for slavery!
Any time some hopeful revisionist claims that the Civil War was not about slavery but states’ rights, I ask them this: What was the difference between the states' rights of Massachusetts and Mississippi in 1861? The answer is that the rights that the residents of both those states had were almost identical--with one glaring exception: residents of Mississippi could legally own slaves while the people of Massachusetts could not.
It was the perceived threat that the newly-elected Republican, Abraham Lincoln, would end this southern right, even though he said he would not touch slavery in the South but just keep it from spreading to the Western territories, that caused South Carolina to secede from the United States of America a month after his election in 1860.
Nearly every southern senator, congressman, governor, and state legislator was a slave owner; the entire southern power structure depended on slave labor to keep it rich and in control. If you read the newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, or just the regular articles written in this time period, it is patently clear that preserving slavery was a do-or-die matter to these people, who used very effective propaganda to convince everyone that this was necessity; needless to say, this propaganda was extremely racist in nature. (Conversely any material that depicted slavery in a bad light, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, was banned; you could be arrested in several southern states if found with a copy.)
Very well said.
Thank you for that.
Conventional wisdom generalize Black as anti-slavery and White as pro-slavery.
What is rarely, if ever, talked about was the crushing control of White people who opposed slavery.
They were lynched right along with their Black bretheren.
The epithet of n***** lover was not merely offensive, it was dangerous.
The charged could find themselves swinging from the end of a rope as well.
Not to mention homosexuals, Jews and Catholics.
I propose a new paid holiday for the North called "Conquest Day" to commemorate the final crushing of the Confederacy at Appomattox. If the rednecks want to celebrate their own treason, the rest of us should be able to celebrate the vanquishing of that treason.
Go ahead. The only time non-Southerners even think about the Civil War is when the Confederate Flag debate is in the public view, and then it goes away. We live daily with the reminders of that period of history, and we'll deal with it in our own way, black and white.
That right their is part of the problem of the North/South relationship in this country. Its always us vs. them. Remebering the CSA Civil War period is fine, its a part of this nation's history and should never be forgotten EVER! Though the glorification that it gets for what at its core it actually represented is ridiculous. The period represented (for this country) human degradation (human beings treated worse than the family pets), treason(states breaking up the union), Family members/Countrymen harming one another. We see this going on in countries around the world now and look at these countries as if they are the most backwards places on Earth. We fail to realize that our nation is still to some extent we went through the same growing pains that they are now experiencing, and are still learning from those same growing pains to become a better nation, because we are far from perfect.
The South did breakup the Union. That is traitorous period. You can gloss over it, put a pretty ribbon on it and call it another name but treason is treason. The fact that a traitors flag is allowed to fly over so many states in this nation is ridiculous. We don't fly United Kingdom flags, or French flags, or Spanish flags on capital buildings, but o we must have the starts and bars freely flying to show how traitorous some of the states were in the past. I know the moniker makes you feel bad but look up the definition of the word and justify it all you like, any rebellion starts off with a group of traitors. Think of it like this The American Revolution was seen as an act of treason against the British Empire when it started but we won so we write that it was a righteous course of action (which I agree with). Same way with the CSA they felt justified in what they were doing but it was still an act of treason, they rebelled against the parent nation and lost.
It's funny though how people from the south ( I was raised in Alabama) scream "The South Will Rise Again" in one breath then scream "Go USA" in another, that just don't get the contradiction I guess, though I am not suprised they don't.
Actually, you've got it backwards. If we had lost the Rebellion (also called the Revolutionary War) and were still subjects of Her Majesty, and were then flying the early American flag over government buildings. That's the equivalent.
As long as you understand what I was trying to say that is all I care about, but I see what you are saying my wording got twisted from what I thought to what I actually typed. But I see the point was understood which is the most important thing.
I completely agree with you. The single greatest threat to the continuity to the United States of America, as we know it today, was the the southern secession that precipitated the Civil War.
The greatest, and happiest irony, is that the southerners by starting the war, ended up by helping to finally abolish slavery. The true revolutionaries were not the reactionary southerners who rebelled to preserve their way of life but those Americans who helped to change our country for the better and bring about our "new birth of freedom."
As a fellow Alabaman, I thank you for putting this so well.
cognitive dissonance. I am also from Alabama and am grateful to have broken out of that mindset. When I visit I am struck by the contradictions. Many seemingly nice people... who hate blacks, gays, Mexicans, Muslims, etc etc, Visited last November and when I said I supported Obama I was gaped at as if I was an alien. The landscape is beautiful, but Alabama is one of the most polluted states in the country. If they don't wake up and join the 21st century soon they'll have to change their motto from Alabama the Beautiful to "hell yes" or "roll tide" or something silly like that.
I heard some talk here trying to imply however subtly that "slavery" was not the main or actual cause of the civil war, that somehow there was a more noble cause for the traitorous acts of the secessionist states. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lead up to the war leaves little doubt as to the cause.
Consider the years from 1855 to 1861;
Bleeding Kansas. http://en.
The Sacking of Lawrence http://en.
John Brown http://en.
Border Ruffians http://en.
The aftermath of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry http://en.
The list is long and the history is well documented. You cannot revise it now. The Southern States brought our country to civil war in order protect slavery and the slave trade. While it is understood that many in the south felt they had no choice due to the fact that the north had industry and the south only agriculture the fact remains that the confederacy should never be acknowledged in anyway without acknowledging the deep malevolence of their goals.
Want something to celebrate? Happy Birthday Abraham Lincoln!!!
First, I agree, Happy Birthday Abe!!
Second, while the root causes of the Civil War were, in fact, due to state's rights re: slavery, the final cause (the spark in the tinderbox, so to speak) had to do with the fact that it was in the Constitution (as interpreted by the Confederacy) that the Several States were supreme, and the federal govt was just around to tie them together and mediate any differences.
Whether you happen to agree with them or not, that was what caused South Carolina to fire on Ft. Sumter, and it was Lincoln telling them that the United States of America was more important than the Several States concept which brought the North into the battle.
Now that you've made it that far, ask yourself what was the root issue the states felt they had the supreme right to determine over the federal government? I'm sure you heard of the Missouri Compromise, Fugitive Slave Act, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc?
States rights was merely a rallying call. Most poor southerners (the ones the leadership needed to fight the war) could not afford slaves. So states rights was the propaganda used by rich plantation owner and others with an interest in the slave trade to rally the rank and file to war.
I think you'd find it awfully difficult to find a historian who'd seriously contend that the Civil War was chiefly about slavery. It was one of many different contributing factors that led to secession. Obviously now it seems like that's the only reason probably because that's what we're taught in grade school and high school to slim it down to a more comprehensible version of things. After all, whoever wins a war gets to write the history about it. But there were other reasons which are equally important to understand and equally ridiculous I might add.
I digress. Who Cares? I mean really. Yes, a holiday commemorating the Confederacy isn't the most progressive of ideas, but why deprive the great state of South Carolina an opportunity down the road (a hundred years or more I imagine) to realize how ridiculous all of this is. I seriously can't imagine that in 2109 white southerners will entertain dreams of "If only we'd have licked them Yankees!" A lot of history is kind of a joke. I think if you can't see the obvious absurdity of the past then you'll miss out on the beautiful absurdity of the present.
In summation, some of the South seems like that friend most people have that's almost always wrong about everything (especially anything requiring introspection). The more you try to change their mind the more stubborn they become. Sometimes you've just gotta give up and hope they figure it out for themselves
Of course you wouldn't find a historian that would say the war was chiefly about slavery. Anyone that can read doesn't need a propagandist to tell them history (see slarabee's breakdown above). That would be a national embarrassment and blatantly undercut recent attempts of discrimination (and denials) while we chastise other countries. And you were taught that in school to brainwash you into keeping the peace and status quo. That's why there hasn't been a major social movement to address ra.cism outside the 60s while casting anyone who brings it up as "trouble-makers". And obviously your lazy attitude toward all of this is predicated on not actually being black and living in the South where subtleties are rubbed in your face. And yes, if we don't face history and tell the truth there will be white Southerners in 2109 saying, "if only we'd licked them Yankees". Passively letting them indulge in their misguided legacy of hatred is how they got that way in 2009, 144 years after the Civil War ended.
I disagree. There are plenty of historians that believe that Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Yes they acknowledge that there were other political issues during the lead up to the war, but most were chaff. In any given moment in history there is always more than one thing happening, those other events are not necessarily causative just because they happened in the same era.
I further disagree with your assessment of how to deal people who are wrong about issues of this nature. We should always point out the "wrong" in their logic. Not so much to convince them but so that they cannot convince others.
"I seriously can't imagine that in 2109 white southerners will entertain dreams of "'If only we'd have licked them Yankees!'"
It's been 148 years and they still don't get it. What makes you think that the next 10 will finally clue them in?
That's another 100 years, not 10.
I am an historian.
The right to have population counted with slaves as 3/5 of a person to determine representation in the House of Representatives?
The right for a state entering the Union to determine whether it would be slave or free?
The right to declare illegal teaching to read based on that person's race/"condtion of servitude" ?
The right to deny citizenship and/or suffrage to any individual or group?
The right to outlaw religious gatherings (as was true for black congregations)?
The right to limit or forbid marriages?
The right to declare human beings property?
Which one of those rights -- all dealing with slavery -- was under threat? What rights -- having nothing to do with slavery -- were under threat?
Of the fifteen Presidents before Abraham Lincoln nine were from slave states, and "Northerners" such as Buchanan had pro-Southern views. Even so-called "Unionists" kept kowtowing to the South to preserve the Union.
The South was overrepresented on the Supreme Court and issued decisions given that slant. Southerners may have had objections to Federal power, and yet they wielded it with glee.
Their cause was anything but noble. We already have Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. Do we really need a Racist's Day???
Mr Anderson,
The real reason for the Civil War was given by the US Govt on July 25th, 1861
"Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capitol; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its own duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States; but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease"
See Monroe Anderson's Profile
RebelYeller: The real reasons for war are never publicly stated by governments. That's why we invaded Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Anderson,
I understand that bush lied. I would also venture to say let none of us trust the govt. However, that being said , I would offer up that in believability issues, a govt from 150 years ago IMHO holds more chutzpa than the slime of today.
Chivalry, honesty, and honor meant far more then than now
You should read on up the Articles of Secession written up by the initial Southern States that committed themselves to Civil War against the North. The North wanted to preserve the Union but the South wanted to preserve and spread slavery. Admit that. Accept it. It was not so noble of a cause that the truth can't be looked at. Lincoln had ties to abolitionist groups. He debated Douglas for hours specifically against slavery. The war was about the states rights to help their economies by owning slaves and spreading it West to the new territories. And if all of this wasn't the case, why didn't the South free their slaves voluntarily without a fuss? Why did they proceed to terrorize freed black citizens well after the war? Why was SC Senator John C. Calhoun threatening civil war over Northern "meddling" in slavery going back to the 1830s? Then check out how President Rutherford B. Hayes sacrificed Southern blacks by pulling out federal troops and ended a supervised Reconstruction so he could win the WH. If it wasn't about subjugation of blacks, then why did it take an extra 100 years to force the South to treat them as equitable citizens? Read up on all of these things and reevaluate your "history". Southern "heritage" doesn't have to founded in reminiscing over a system of inhumane brutality while lying about how it ended. Communist China can lie better than that.
robXdion
I have read and understand the articles of secession. 4 states used slavery as an issue to seceed. 9 did not.
Secession is not war. Period. After 7 states left and formed the CSA there was 2 months of peace - no war.
As stated above, that was the reason the govt went to war. It is thier own words. 4 states didn't leave until after lincoln's illegal call for troops.
I am just saying, Fords bill needs to pass so students and others can have these debates in a classroom setting. Rgar and taking time officially to remember our forebears, black white red and brown.
Thank you for this bit of clarity.
Um.... That was AFTER the war had started! That's like claiming that the cause of WWII was Germany declaring war on the USA after the Japanese had already bombed Pearl Harbor and we'd already declared war on them!
Someone should push for a national holiday celebrating the Martyr John Brown. I think that would send an appropriate message to the southern states.
See Monroe Anderson's Profile
Alarabee: After nearly 150, they still haven't gotten the message that they lost the Civil War. Northerners are going to have to reinvade the South before they'll surrender again--and that's happening. As more snowbirds move South with their enlightened mindset, the good ol boys are beginning to realize that times are a-changin as the occupation keeps surging.
Losing a war is certainly not the same as remembering ones ancestors.
I support Senator Ford's bill. Proof that such is needed is evident here on this thread
You keep right on thinking that......
I'm an ardent Unionist, but John Brown was nothing but a terrorist. That he was made a hero then, and remains so to some, is revolting. He slaughtered innocent people. No holiday for him.
U.S. Grant gave the South the appropriate message in April of 1865:
"The results of the last week must convince you of the hopelessness of further resistance on the part of the Army of Northern Virginia in this struggle. I feel that it is so, and regard it as my duty to shift from myself the responsibility of any further effusion of blood by asking of you the surrender of that portion of the Confederate States army known as the Army of Northern Virginia."
Lee agreed, surrendered, and the rest of his generals followed suit.
What's needed is plain speaking about just what people are supporting when they get militantly defensive about the Confederacy. Beyond the racism, why it's not seen as the apex of anti-American sentiment, I just do not know.
I am a transplanted New Yorker now living in Atlanta.
Imagine my shock when I was told no mail was delivered because of Confederates Day.
WTF times five.
This Robert Ford person? WTF times ten.
blaqntelligence
No such day in the state of Georgia, nor the empire of Atlanta.
Perhaps you are not a actual resident of Atlanta?
Is that right? You need to tell the government workers who stay home on that day they are all delusional.
http://geo
And I need to lie why?
I didn't even know this particular holiday existed until I moved to Atlanta GA.
Another little tidbit you may find interestin
http://www
Anything you'd like to further add to this discourse, reb?
Yeah, I don't agree with RebelYeller on anything else, but this does not exist. Also, it wouldn't matter if it did, because the Post Office is a federal institution, not state.
No need to make stuff up, the reality is horrific enough.
Well sir, you are free to go back to New York...
Does the senator understand that the Confederate objective was to annihilate the Union? Does he realize that if they'd succeeded in nationalizing the depraved institution of slavery, which was their intent, that he'd never have had a vote, much less held elected office? You don't honor treason, regardless of how well the traitors fought, and you never sanction their cause. This guy should be recalled.
The lack of responses to this outrageous news is proof that we are indeed nowhere near being "post racial." Imagine if Senator Ford were white and proposing this--you'd have at least 3 pages of white lib angst and spume by now.
We're neither post-racial nor post-racist, sad to say, and Ford seems to be a cynical opportunist taking advantage of that fact.
PennP wrote
" Does the senator understand that the Confederate objective was to annihilate the Union? Does he realize that if they'd succeeded in nationalizing the depraved institution of slavery, which was their intent, that he'd never have had a vote, much less held elected office? "
PennP, yet another reason why Senator Ford's bill should pass.
On March 4th, 1861, President Lincoln said this in his Inaugrual Speech:
" I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution -- which amendment, however, I have not seen -- has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocabl
He was referring to the Corwin Amendment. Certainly Monroe Anderson is well aware of this legislation, as Illinois was one of the states to ratify it.
It reads
" No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
The cool thing about that is it was written by yankees and ratified by yankees.
"Offering the amendment was a last-ditch effort to avert the outbreak of the Civil War. Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives's version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by Senator William H. Seward of New York. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was totally committed to independence, and so it ignored the proposed Corwin Amendment.
What is more to the point though is that us "Yankees" do not celebrate those that supported slavery. We have somehow managed to make the evolutionary leap to understanding that slavery is wrong.
Keep trying though, someday you will get it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
