At this point, I’m sure even Va. Goobernator Bob McDonnell rues the day he decided to reinstate Confederate History Month. People still get a little cranky over the Civil War – especially when you gloss over a nasty little thing like slavery as “insignificantâ€. After having a new butthole chewed into his backside, he apologized – weakly and not very convincingly – and probably hoped the whole thing would blow over before the next Shad Planking.
Luck must love an imbecile though, because Pat Buchanan put on his Screaming Head hat and rode onto Chris Matthews’ Hardball and provided enough cover for Bob-O to slink off the hot seat and back to a pig-pickin’ around back of the Gov’s Mansion.
I grew up in Virginia and was force-fed state history from the womb until the age of majority. Still, I had something to learn from Pat – slavery didn’t drive Virginia out of the Union! In Pat’s alternative universe, they just didn’t want to take up arms against the real crackers down Mississippi way.
Just Some 1860-Vintage Tea Partiers
“What took them out of the Union was when Abraham Lincoln said, we want 75,000 volunteers, your militia and your soldiers in Virginia, to attack the deep South and bring them back into the union,†Pat lectured. “They said, we’re not going to kill our kinsmen.â€
And slavery?
Nah, not such a big deal apparently. According to Pat, Virginians were just some good-hearted, 1860-vintage tea partiers yearning to be free of their oppressive government. “They wanted to be free of the Union,†Pat said.
But which side was right?
Pat, drawing on his best King Solomon Magic 8 Ball – split the difference. “I think in a way both sides were right. Lincoln had a right to save the Union. I think they [the South] had a right to go free.â€
Now Pat is correct…a little. The founding fathers did keep slaves – and some were conflicted by it – though not enough to free any while they were alive. There were some states’ rights and economic issues having nothing to do with slavery. However, I’d guess if you asked the average person what the Civil War was about they wouldn’t say, “Why, a conflict between the central governing principles of states’ rights and federalism, of course.â€
Instead, you’d get a one-word answer, “Slavery.â€
Saying the Civil War was about anything other than slavery, is about as disingenuous as saying the U.S. and Japan went to war because of tariffs and balance of trade issues.
Tone Deaf or Just Plain Evil?
No one, least of all these men themselves, is stupid enough to not know that. So that leaves one of two explanations. Either they’re displaying the sort of tone-deafness that made Pat a favorite of the Nixon, Ford, and St. Ronnie of Reagan abominations administrations or they intentionally say these stupid-assed things because they believe them.
Pat thinks we’ve lost a teaching moment about the Civil War, and as much as it pains me, I agree with him. There is a place for Confederate History Month, but it isn’t as a forum to racially cleanse a shameful, embarrassing event by minimizing its biggest cause. We could use a true teaching moment that includes all the reasons and all the actions – north, south, black, white, rich, or poor. The lesson could be a powerful way to demonstrate why slavery was not right and how we can learn to avoid such hatred and stupidity today.
But before we begin preparing lesson plans I suggest that Bob and Pat take some refresher history courses if they expect to be teachers. Or at the very least, rethink what they know – because there is no place in America for people who are so ill-informed.
Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 42
Emancipation Proclamation ...naw it's about taxes! sic 'semper tyrannis' ? nope..sorry fella.....'A foe to tyrants, and my country’s friend'
Sorry, but the South had been threatening to secede for many years before Lincoln's election, including during the Buchanan (President James, not pundit Pat) administration, a rather incompetent man but with southern sympathies who also felt that secession was illegal.
The reasons for those threats? They wanted to expand slavery into the new territories as they became states. Yep, slavery. The wealthy landowners had all the political and economic power, oh, and the slaves, and since the founders had stopped the slave trade long ago, desperately needed new places to keep the slave-based economy alive so as to protect their wealth.
Lincoln was elected based on his belief that the Constitution protected slavery where it had existed but the founders clearly believed, and took steps to assure, that slavery was a dying institution that would eventually go away as people understood how wrong it was, just as every other country had learned. The South would have none of that.
To say that slavery was a side issue is not only uninformed by actively so. Come on Charles, you can be ideological without denying history. It's unbecoming.
Slavery was an integral part of the southern economy. Without it the south would have had more manufacturing and trade. The economic theory of the Civil War was the most popular before the '60s when academic historians took a look at the facts from a different perspective. You can't talk about the Civil War or the southern economy without talking about slavery. The only way the economic theory is defensible is to pretend that slavery didn't exist.
BTW - the confederacy LOST the idiotic and unnecessary war that they provoked. Learn to deal.
Chuckie likes to use really "sophisticated" words like "religious diatribe" to compensate for his gutless liberal ideology. He tells Conservatives to learn to deal, when he's clearly not playing with a full deck.
Charles M., you sir, are right on the money the Civil War, like so many other wars was a revolution against tyrannical taxation.
Unlike the American Revolution, not only did the wrong side lose, Fuhrerham Lincoln was a ruthless dictator who did irreparable damage to the U.S. Constitution.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Sorry, but that is the most moronic and uninformed opinion I've seen expressed here on Gather in quite a long time. (Well, along with the rest of your comment)
Congratulations Ty MC. You take the cake. [Ah, PR for right-wing ideologues. Well, at least you admit you are a professional propagandist. Saves us the trouble of accidentally thinking you might have some credibility on any issue.]
They did. It was called Nixon's "southern strategy". Segregationist democrats in the south, who vehemently opposed civil and voting rights legislation, flipped to the republican party in the 60s and 70s. The "party of Lincoln" may not be the democratic party today - but it sure as hell ain't the republican party.
Probably not.
..."the party of Palin"?
That is exactly the dynamic that took place in this Virginia proclamation blunder, which was by design - not an "oversight". "Whitewashing" the confederacy is a necessity for an organization of losers (sons of confederate veterans), who miserably try to redeem some illusion of nobility in support of their ancester worship.
Did I just say that? They've been talking about him and a possible VP nod since he won the Virginia Governor's race all those, um, weeks, ago. Please, the guy's liabilities may have been overlooked in Virginia but they won't be in the rest of the country. The thesis is still out there.
And they done fell again. The w. administration was the worst in history, based in large part on the delusions that are part-and-parcel of this "southern strategy". Denying reality doesn't make it go away - it only makes it your "achilles heel".
Indeed, the sentiment in the south after the election of George W. Bush was that the south had "risen again", and had finally won the civil war. But the pervasive and absolute failure of the Bush adminstration is a direct result of the high confidence such folks can assert in service of their delusions. The psychological split that is needed to deny such realities as the relationship of slavery to secession and civil war is seriously pathological. The evidence of that pathology can be seen in the extreme failure of the Bush administration, as well as that of the Jeff Davis adminstration.
No slavery, no Civil War, it's a simple as that. The Sons of the Confedrate Veterans, the silly fringe group behind McDonnell's ignorant and backward looking proclamation, will try to tell you that many Confederate soldiers were not fighting to defend slavery. Truth: they did not THINK that they were fighting to defend slavery, because they did not own slaves themselves. But in reality, they were fighting to protect the right of their wealthier southern neighbors to own slaves. They were being PLAYED. Read "Cold Mountain", the novel about the conflicted loyalties of the mountain south during the Civil War. Some of the CSA soldiers smartened up in time and deserted, not their fight. But of course, if the provost guard of Robert E. Lee's army caught any of them, they got shot.
Poor whites in the south are STILL being played to vote against their own interests, to be union free, to fight OSHA regulations that keep their workplaces safe, to endorse public policy that makes it impossible for them to get health care. Read "Deer hunting for Jesus."
True - common sayin' 'round here is that a college educated person has "book sense", but no "common sense" - whatever the hell that is....
Then again, maybe it would turn out to be just another sign-wagging showdown that causes trouble all the way around.
Sigh...
I don't think so. History is not a relativistic game of dualing interpretations. There is no doubt, except in the collective whitewashed delusions of the confederate ancestor worshippers, that slavery was the issue over which the civil war was fought. The whole point of a proclamation, which ignores the issue of slavery, is to "legitimize" a myopic fantasy re: the noble, old south.
I used to wonder how post WWII germans could claim they didn't know what went on in concetration camps. Now I know. In America, we have treason sympathizers, who deny that slavery was the primary institution of the southern states - an institution upon which the region's entire economy was based. I know people loathe the comparison of virtually anything to the third reich, but tell me...what is the difference between a plantation and a work camp? "Arbeit macht frei" - nicht wahr?
I should clarify, I didn't mean to imply that the facts of history vary and are right or wrong, but I do believe history is interpretive by its very nature.
Most of "history" happened before any of us was born and even the history within a lifetime is new and still changing at a rapid rate. As new things are discovered and different nuances, and yes, interpretations are applied, there can be a divergence of opinion just as wide as there is with contemporary issues. People see things in different ways and history is no different. Nothing in the present or in history is always perfectly calibrated and understood in the same way by every person.
Having said that, there are prevailing interpretations that usually hold sway (one of them being that the Civil War was chiefly about slavery). That doesn't mean other things can't be considered and in some cases, people will see the consensus notion in a different way than others.
Like you, I expect that many Germans who claimed they had no idea about concentration camps were lying. If you were a mid-level Whermacht officer in Poland you'd know more than the same officer living in El Alemain, especially because of the controlled communications of the day and the physical separation. If you were a man on the street, you'd probably know even less. It's not as if Die Zeitung had a lead story about gassing people every morning. A rational person removed from the immediate situation would struggle to even believe anyone was that monsterous. Hell, I still struggle with it and I know the opposite is true. I can see that happening with quite a few Germans, just as I can see Americans coming to the conclusion the Civil War wasn't about slavery. I'm just not one of them.
Their facts aren't wrong, they are weighted differently. Everything mentioned so far did play a part. The question is, what was the main factor.
I think the preponderence of historical fact supports the notion that the Civil War was chiefly about slavery and I make that conclusion. I'd question those who say otherwise, because I don't think the historical fact is there to support that conclusion.
Hell, most Americans didn't know about contentration camps until after they were liberated and the Allied Powers kept that a secret just like the Germans. If history were black and white, you could argue that the Americans were just as culpable as the Germans. When you consider the vagaries of war and politics, the specifics aren't so clear. However, at the end of the day, most people come to the conclusion that they were abominations and I think fairly so.
In general, I don't think I disagree with you. However, in cases like the third reich and the confederacy, "beliefs" are irrelevant. As you say, "I think the preponderence of historical fact supports the notion that the Civil War was chiefly about slavery and I make that conclusion. I'd question those who say otherwise, because I don't think the historical fact is there to support that conclusion."
"Everything mentioned so far did play a part. The question is, what was the main factor."
Factors, such as states' rights, were rationalizations. Lending credence to such "interpretations" (which you are not doing here - but the sons of confederate veterans are) does nothing but support a social psychopathology. In other words, all "interpretations" are not equal - and some are simply sick.
The psychological "split" that is represented by the VA governor's proclamation, not integrating the causal factor of slavery, is serious and dreadfully destructive. It was rightly confronted in the strongest possible language. Fortunately, the governor corrected himself. Even so, he has done serious damage to his credibility.
"As a former resident of Va. who was force-fed state history from the womb on, I can tell you that whether Va would've stayed if they weren't required to take up arms against the rest of the south, is open to interpretation by many citizens and historians. To understand what Va. did then, it's instructive to look at Va. now, because the demographics are mainly unchanged.
Most of the people lived in eastern Va., even back then. The east depended much more heavily on trade with the north and a burgeoning European trade along with manufacturing. Hence, little desire to leave the union.
The central and western regions were and still are mostly rural and agricultural. Those farmers depended on slave labor to a much higher degree than in the east. Hence, the more strongly supported secession because it affected their bread and butter. And in that day (and in fact, still) the western representatives were much more vocal in their desire to leave, which forced the hand of the legislature as they tried to keep the state together, much less the union. Historically, the east also cared less about states' rights too, except in how it affected their commerce. They want central currency and a central bank for existence.
For those reasons, many if not most people believe that slavery was an issue that was equal to and probably greater than states rights. Also, consider this: in their formal declaration of sucession, Va. specifically cited the issue of slavery as the reason (along with others).
I should also point out that his schism was true in the Revolution when most easterners remained neutral or Tory.
You're both right, both wrong idea is essentially what Buchannan said, so I'm not sure that watching the videos would've given you much more than you already know.
However, I see the secession as the wrong side. The north had tried for years to appease them and couldn't. The more firebrand politicians decided the time had come for a split and did so. But, the split was elegal and seditious by law then and now, so I don't think anyone can make a case for it being "right". It was against the law and I don't think anyone would disagree that the long-term interests of the union and the confederacy were better served by apply the law (with force as needed) forcing the states to stay together.
It seems to me you could make a reasonable case, and in fact, there was a reasonable case made that the south's actions were treasonous.
Put in a modern perspective, does Texas have the "right" to seceed?
In any case, it DOES matter what people think, even if it is wrong. If you don't understand their understanding there is no way to reconcile the differences.
BTW...the south bashing isn't very spot-on in my experience either. The biggest racists, by far, are ones I've met living and working in northern states where the population of minorities next to nill. The south has it's problems, but by and large they cope with the tensions better than what I've seen in northern states. For the record, I don't think the Voting Rights Act should only apply to the 13 southern states either. I think it should apply to all 50 states.
As for education, you can find just as many reactionary minds that poo-poo education in other parts of the country...texas, portions of the midwest, etc. Sarah Palin just called science snake oil for god's sake and you can't get more northern than her.
When what people think is sick, I don't know of a more compassionate approach than confrontation. And there are times when "reconciliation" is not an option. I don't think that "reconciling" with the minimization of slavery's role relative to the civil war is healthy or helpful. It remains fraught with "split", from micro to macro social integration. And "integration" (integrity) has a very specific psychological meaning here. In other words, you either deal with your demons, or they will deal with you - case in point: the civil war.
"...the south bashing isn't very spot-on in my experience either."
Labeling "confrontation" as "south bashing" certainly isn't "spot-on".
"The biggest racists, by far, are ones I've met living and working in northern states where the population of minorities next to nill."
I don't doubt racism is evenly distributed throughout the nation, and I don't doubt that whites are not the only racists. However, I am arguing very specifically here regarding the VA governor's proclamation, and more generally regarding the attempt to "split" off the civil war from its cause - slavery.
Btw - my father's family was Jewish. (My mother was Irish-Catholic, so I'm not sure what that makes me.) At any rate, members of my father's family were tortured and killed as a result of the third reich's "final solution". I have absolutely no tolerance for such ignorance, as expressed by the "president" of Iran (that the holocaust didn't exist), and I have absolutely no tolerance for the ignorance that minimizes slavery as the cause of the civil war.
"As for education, you can find just as many reactionary minds that poo-poo education in other parts of the country..."
And what better way to deal with ignorance than to expose it for what it is? Sister Sarah is very popular in the south, you know.