EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Welcome to Confederate History Month
t's kind of like that legendary stunt on the prime-time soap "Dallas," where we learned that nothing bad had really happened because the previous season's episodes were all a dream. We now know that the wave of anger that crashed on the Capitol as the health care bill passed last month - the death threats and epithets hurled at members of Congress - was also a mirage.
Take it from the louder voices on the right. Because no tape has surfaced of anyone yelling racial slurs at the civil rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis, it's now a blogosphere "fact" that Lewis is a liar and the "lamestream media" concocted the entire incident. The same camp maintains as well that the spit landing on the Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was inadvertent spillover saliva from an over-frothing screamer - spittle, not spit, as it were. True, there is video evidence of the homophobic venom directed at Barney Frank - but, hey, Frank is white, so no racism there!
"It's Not About Race" declared a headline on a typical column defending over-the-top "Obamacare" opponents from critics like me, who had the nerve to suggest a possible racial motive in the rage aimed at the likes of Lewis and Cleaver - neither of whom were major players in the Democrats' health care campaign. It's also mistaken, it seems, for anyone to posit that race might be animating anti-Obama hotheads like those who packed assault weapons at presidential town hall meetings on health care last summer. And surely it is outrageous for anyone to argue that conservative leaders are enabling such extremism by remaining silent or egging it on with cries of "Reload!" to pander to the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base. As Beck has said, it's Obama who is the real racist.
I would be more than happy to stand corrected. But the story of race and the right did not, alas, end with the health care bill. Hardly had we been told that all that ugliness was a fantasy than we learned back in the material world that the new Republican governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, had issued a state proclamation celebrating April as Confederate History Month.
In doing so, he was resuscitating a dormant practice that had been initiated in 1997 by George Allen, the Virginia governor whose political career would implode in 2006 when he was caught on camera calling an Indian-American constituent "macaca." McDonnell had been widely hailed by his party as a refreshing new "big tent" conservative star when he took office in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, in January. So perhaps his Dixiecrat proclamation, if not a dream, might have been a staff-driven gaffe rather than a deliberate act of racial provocation.
That hope evaporated once McDonnell was asked to explain why there was no mention of slavery in his declaration honoring "the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens." After acknowledging that slavery was among "any number of aspects to that conflict between the states," the governor went on to say that he had focused on the issues "I thought were most significant for Virginia." Only when some of his own black supporters joined editorialists in observing that slavery was significant to some Virginians too - a fifth of the state's population is black - did he beat a retreat and apologize.
But his original point had been successfully volleyed, and it was not an innocent mistake. McDonnell's words have a well-worn provenance. In "Race and Reunion," the definitive study of Civil War revisionism, the historian David W. Blight documents the long trajectory of the insidious campaign to erase slavery from the war's history and reconfigure the lost Southern cause as a noble battle for states' rights against an oppressive federal government. In its very first editorial upon resuming publication in postwar 1865, The Richmond Dispatch characterized the Civil War as a struggle for the South's "sense of rights under the Constitution." The editorial contained not "a single mention of slavery or black freedom," Blight writes. That evasion would be a critical fixture of the myth-making to follow ever since.
McDonnell isn't a native Virginian but he received his master's and law degrees at Pat Robertson's university in Virginia Beach during the 1980s, when Robertson was still a rare public defender of South Africa's apartheid regime. As a major donor to McDonnell's campaign and an invited guest to his Inaugural breakfast, Robertson is closer politically to his protégé than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama. McDonnell chose his language knowingly when initially trying to justify his vision of Confederate History Month. His sanitized spin on the Civil War could not have been better framed to appeal to an unreconstructed white cohort that, while much diminished in the 21st century, popped back out of the closet during the Obama ascendancy.
But once again you'd have to look hard to find any conservative leader who criticized McDonnell for playing with racial fire. Instead, another Southern governor - who, as it happened, had issued a Confederate Heritage Month proclamation of his own - took up his defense. The whole incident didn't "amount to diddly," said Haley Barbour, of Mississippi, when asked about it by Candy Crowley of CNN last weekend.
Barbour, a potential presidential aspirant, was speaking from New Orleans, where the Southern Republican Leadership Conference was in full cry. Howard Fineman of Newsweek reported that he couldn't find any African-American, Hispanic or Asian-American attendees except for the usual G.O.P. tokens trotted out as speakers - J. C. Watts, Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele, only one of them (Jindal) holding public office.
New Orleans had last attracted G.O.P. attention in 2008, when John McCain visited there as part of a "forgotten places" campaign tour to deliver the message that his party cared about black Americans and that "never again" would the city's tragedy be ignored. "Never" proved to have a shelf life of less than two years. None of the opening-night speakers at last weekend's conference (Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mary Matalin et al.) so much as mentioned Hurricane Katrina, according to Ben Smith of Politico. When Barbour did refer to it later on, it was to praise the Bush administration's recovery efforts and chastise the Democrats' "man-made disaster" in Washington.
Most Americans who don't like Obama or the health care bill are not racists. It may be a closer call among Tea Partiers, of whom only 1 percent are black, according to last week's much dissected Times/CBS News poll. That same survey found that 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel "too much" has been made of the problems facing black people - nearly twice the national average. And that's just those who admit to it. Whatever their number, those who are threatened and enraged by the new Obama order are volatile. Conservative politicians are taking a walk on the wild side by coddling and encouraging them, whatever the short-term political gain.
The temperature is higher now than it was a month ago. It's not happenstance that officials from the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia and Mississippi have argued, as one said this month, that the Confederate Army had been "fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for." Obama opposition increasingly comes wrapped in the racial code that McDonnell revived in endorsing Confederate History Month. The state attorneys general who are invoking states' rights in their lawsuits to nullify the federal health care law are transparently pushing the same old hot buttons.
"They tried it here in Arkansas in '57, and it didn't work," said the Democratic governor of that state, Mike Beebe, likening the states' health care suits to the failed effort of his predecessor Orval Faubus to block nine black students from attending the all-white Little Rock Central High School. That battle for states' rights ended when President Eisenhower, a Republican who would be considered a traitor to his party in 2010, enforced federal law by sending in troops.
How our current spike in neo-Confederate rebellion will end is unknown. It's unnerving that Tea Party leaders and conservatives in the Oklahoma Legislature now aim to create a new volunteer militia that, as The Associated Press described it, would use as yet mysterious means to "help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty." This is the same ideology that animated Timothy McVeigh, whose strike against the tyrannical federal government will reach its 15th anniversary on Monday in the same city where the Oklahoma Legislature meets.
What is known is that the nearly all-white G.O.P. is so traumatized by race it has now morphed into a bizarre paragon of both liberal and conservative racial political correctness. For irrefutable proof, look no further than the peculiar case of its chairman, Steele, whose reckless spending and incompetence would cost him his job at any other professional organization, let alone a political operation during an election year. Steele has job security only because he is the sole black man in a white party hierarchy. That hierarchy is as fearful of crossing him as it is of calling out the extreme Obama haters in its ranks.
At least we can take solace in the news that there's no documentary evidence proving that Tea Party demonstrators hurled racist epithets at John Lewis. They were, it seems, only whistling "Dixie.Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


60 Comments so far
Show AllI prefer the =centered= version. It gives some balance to this silly polemic.
In any case, it's a bit like reading Ulysses by James Joyce...probably won't do it in paragraph format or poetic ramble.
Slavery is part of studying about the history of not only the Confederacy but the entire USA. We should also look at the genocide against the indigenous people of this country which not at all peculiar to any particular part of this country. To study history and learn from it, it's crucial to learn about the wrong that went on, which often is more the rule than the exception.
All history has a lesson for us all, and meanwhile we must deal with the fact that the winners in any war or other conflict tend to write the history of same to make themselves look better. Sometimes they get it right but often they don't, as they seek more to make their side look better, if not to canonize it.
Obviously the neo cons are nuts, but the current US president isn't at all any kind of real opponent for them, and the GOP hierarchy know it full well.
The more crucial point is how the two major parties are almost carbon copies of each other while pretending to be otherwise. They both back the agenda of US power elites over that of rule by the people.
AD
More silliness from Frank Rich who loves to use Teabaggers as distraction for war criminal and Uncle Tom in chief Barack Obama. We all know Teabaggers are freaks, Mr. Rich, but they're not in charge, Obama is.
Yes! It's sickening how race is used to further the neoliberal agenda.
Of course, that's what makes obama's coronation so powerful, so complete. Can't get things done under cheney/bush, send in a charasmatic black man who always says the right thing to finish the job. And to ensure against the left ever getting too critical, get a tea party going, throw in a good dose of insanity and hate, publicize it 24/7, and you get a populace that is so frightened, it will run into the arms of the neoliberals no matter what they do. Fix health care by forcing unlimited citizen money into the hands of the insurers--'hey, it's not perfect, but what a victory over those obstructionist republicans!' Plan to privatize social security? 'No problem, as long as it keeps sarah palin from the white house.'
Frighteningly effective victory by kkkkarl rove and frank luntz and the corportists they shill for.
P.S.
More perfection from the propagandists: Remember to continually call obama and the nolibs 'socialists' so that any sort of real socialist, or common-good programs, like single-payer, are considered extremist and not even up for consideration.
Agreed
No Confederates were tried for Treason, though there is no better word for the entire Confederate escapade into stupidity from the first attack on Fort Sumpter through the secession of southern States - note - no msm even mentioned treason of Davis and company when the recent Confederate flap occured.
Lincoln tried to calm the waters by making amends to Davis and other miscreant Confederates aimed at the destruction of the United States. That was a mistake.
I see no benefit to the mainstream media not calling for the removal of these two fine specimens of southern manhood from their Gubanatorial seats. But, they likely think that would be a mistake too.
The key here is the Confederates were not treasonous. Within the limited democracy at the time, they seceded from a Union the States themselves had formed, entered into, and could thus withdraw from. The form of government they set up was very much like the one they seceded from. Whether we today like it or not, slavery was legal in the USA at the time and formed the basis of the South's political-economy, just as it had in the North. Indeed, some Northern states were considerably more racist than Southern slave states. At issue was the expansion of slavery into the Territories, not the continued existence of slavery in the South, and the history of the politics and struggles about that issue is very long, complicated, and complex--enough to make a collegiate post-grad year-long seminar barely sufficient to cover it all; there's not nearly enough time allowed in survey US History courses to dig into the whole mess in the way it needs to be dug into (which is true of several other US historic eras), which leads to many misconceptions.
To think that Jefferson Davis and others wanted to destroy the United States is very wrong headed. True, the Empire would have split into two halves, but the North as the United States would have continued. Lincoln's job was to preserve the Empire/Union as he himself admitted. Freeing slaves was never his intended goal.
karlof1
Nice comment. And since the Civil War was not about slavery which is quite evident, its pleasant of you to note that "some Northern states were considerably more racist than Southern slave states"
As a reminder to the pretentious Yankee's abroad in the land and their fellow travelers, it would behoove you to get your foot out of your mouth when you make ignorant statements about the South. The southern slave's were freed by Lincoln, but oops, the slaves in the slave owing states still in the Union were NOT freed. You boy's still owned slaves when the Confederacy's slaves were free.
Oh my goodness, that certainly upsets some sanctimonious apple carts.
Again Karlof, a pleasure to read a knowledgeable post.
Restricting oneself to studying just the Civil War years, 1861-65, is quite insufficient to understand the Civil War. For that, one must study the whole of US history, especially the 1810-1860 time period and the mechanics of the several "Great Compromises." The theory of secession invoked by the South also brings into questiuon the legitimacy of the 1787 constitution, which is an aspect seldom raised by historians or teachers because of the massive can-of-worms it opens. In my pursuit of history, I've been very lucky to have had some outstanding teachers and good libraries. Some of the fundamental issues underlying the Civil War have yet to be solved, which is an aspect of the Tea Party nobody has yet raised. These issues are a part of the debate between those known as Federalists and Anti-Federalists and turn primarilly on the question of the desire for a strong or weak national government. The Tea Party offers an outstanding teachable moment for the teacher who can connect the present to the issues of the past and thus show that those issues are still alive and kicking, which is why we must have a deep understanding of our actual history--not the glossed over version provided in the overview texts that provide the gist for "Lies My Teacher Told me." It's all too easy for people like Rich to play on the indoctrination promoted by such texts. And it's all too easy for the elite to control this country because too few people really know and understand the nature of US History.
karlof1
That was beautifully put! History was my first degree and I love it. American history, European through the world wars, Russian, Roman and the Napoleanic period were my favorites.
When you get right down to it, the Tea Party is a continuing representation of the Anti-Federalists arguments and the reasons for the Confederacy.
"not the glossed over version provided in the overview texts that provide the gist for "Lies My Teacher Told me." It's all too easy for people like Rich to play on the indoctrination promoted by such texts. And it's all too easy for the elite to control this country because too few people really know and understand the nature of US History"
Oh so true. When I've had the opportunity to look at some of our history textbooks, HS and college, they are not too full of historical content, if you know what I mean.
I really appreciate your remarks. I'm ashamed I didn't pick up the Federalists and Anti-Federalists connection on my own.
karlof1 An Edit
"it would behoove you to get your foot out of your mouth when you make ignorant statements about the South"
I re-read this and thought it could be misconstrued as the "you" referring to ...you. Not the case, I should have said, "their" instead of "your" and "they" instead of "you"
Just in case you thought it was meant as a comment to you.
karlof1 April 18th, 2010 2:58 pm -- Your comments and the give and take with Veritas are very interesting. I assume you agree with the Virginia governor's downplaying of slavery, and believe the outrage expressed by blacks and others about its omission was misplaced. How do you explain why ending slavery was a result of the war if Lincoln never intended that to happen?
manning120
To throw in my 2 cents worth, I don't think that Karloff or myself "agree with the Virginia governor's downplaying of slavery" I would say I thought it was not necessary. Celebrating the Confederacy is NOT celebrating slavery.
I thought the outcry was simply from those that need to take offense or simply are ignoprant of history. Consider that many blacks here do not have ancestors that were slaves, so just because you are black gives you no right to act as if they were.
I also get very frustrated with stuff like this. Consider if they are so offended by slavery, if they are so upset, why don't they do something to stop slavery. Why not free the slaves rather than worry if the Confederate Battle Flag signifies "slavery" which it doesn't. Or honoring the boy's that fought during that war, 96% of whom owned no slaves.
Actually we know that Lincoln didn't approve of slavery, but we will never know what his intent was if there hadn't been a war.
Lincoln even stated in his inaugural speech that he did not favor ending slavery in the states where it was legal. Once he emancipated the slaves, he only did so in the areas in rebellion so that Union troops could remove the slaves in areas that they were occupying as a method of destroying the economies of the Southern states. No workers, no work, no work meant no way to support armies in the field. In areas of the Union that kept slaves (Maryland, Tennesee, Missouri and Kentucky), slavery remained legal till the full Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 a year later. It was the Union that last held slaves, not the Confederacy.
Veritas April 19th, 2010 2:03 pm – So you're saying the ending of slavery never became an objective of Lincoln or the Union? I assume slavery was ended in the south against the will of the governing whites. How was slavery ended in Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, and Missouri without the consent of the governing whites there?
By the way, I don't think one has to have ancestors who were slaves to be at least disturbed at McDonnell's omission of slavery. I don't have such ancestors.
I ended my prior comment with a hint toward the answer here. A lot of effort (much of it likely illegal) went into ensuring the border states had governments sympathetic to the Union. Senator Henderson of Missouri put forth the joint resolution for the elimination of slavery. He was elected to the senate after a pro-Confedrate senator had been expelled by the senate for his support of the South. Both MO and KY senators were expelled from the senate and replaced by pro-Union officials, which means pro-Union forces controlled the states's governments. The fine details related to your question are some I've yet to take the time to examine.
If the South's Fire-Eaters had been restrained by the saner members of the Confederacy, the start of the Civil War would have occured in some other manner, if it started at all. The North had its share of Fire-Eaters too, but they were more firmly under control. Imagine the course of the USA if Corwin's amendment had been ratified and the Union made whole again--another of History's What Ifs? Just beneath the importance of the extension of slavery was the economic conflict over the tariff and the nature of "internal improvements" and their relationship to small versus big government and the prior, still existing, rift between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Essentially, if one sides with the ideals proclaimed as the Spirit of '76, then one is an Anti-Federalist, which in layman's terms means anti-1787 constitution. And as always, there are various shades of gray. But you will note that what was initially meant by the Spirit of '76 now also means (somehow) automatic support for the 1787 constitution and ITS "founders."
karlof1 April 19th, 2010 4:53 pm -- I appreciate the calm, rational discussion of these matters. If my history teachers had related the past to the present as you and Veritas have done (not that I agree with everything you say), I would have paid a lot more attention.
Regarding your remarks about the Spirit of '76, are you saying the "founders" in 1776 were of a different mind than those of 1787? If so, can you explain a bit what you mean? I think you're right if you're saying that few Americans make such a distinction.
manning120--Thanks for your reply and your queries."... are you saying the "founders" in 1776 were of a different mind than those of 1787? If so, can you explain a bit what you mean?"
Yes. The point at issue is the governing blueprint and the philosophy guiding it. The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation, and its national government was known as the Continental Congress and had no executive whatsoever. If you read the Declaration and understand the finer points at issue related to aristocratical/regal tyranny, then you will understand why the first US government had no executive that could morph into a king. The possibilty of executive tyranny was ressurected with the adpotion of the 1787 constitution in an act that was essentially a coup as the previous form of government was overthrown wholesale, except the concept of a "people's house." Those in favor of this coup called themselves Federalists, and by default, those against became known as Anti-Federalists. The Federalists would soon prove the apprehensions of the Anti's correct with the adoption of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were acts of tyranny on par with King George III's.
I suggest you read the 1787 constitution's section on the Executive to discover just what restraints are placed upon it. Then, read very closely the powers of congress to discover how they have the "right" to regulate most everything. Then go and read the Articles. Now comes the meat: "The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781" and "The new nation : a history of the United States during the Confederation 1781-1789," both by Merrill Jensen. Then you can proceed on to "What the Anti-Federalists Were For," by Herbert Storing, and perhaps a few of the other fine works about the A-F's. You will then know more than most history teachers.
Why wasn't there any type of great resistance to the coup that brought forth the 1787 constitution? The standard answers are the promise of a Bill of Rights and the presumption by all that George Washington would become president, a man all knew would refuse to become king, as he was already offered such a position early in the Revolution. Plus, there was ample opportunity for economic democracy for most non-slaves based upon essentially free land being available--the fertilizer for the myth of rugged individulaism.
How soon was the unlimited amount of power held by the executive discovered? It was Jefferson who discovered there were no bounds to what he might do. He waged a covert war against Spain in Florida. He thought he would need a special act of congress for the Louisiana Purchase when all he needed was for the monies to be appropriated. The Lewis and Clark Expedition was an off-budget, semi-secret operation that invaded non-US territories (The story sure isn't told like that is it?), and that's just scratching the surface. Further proof resides in Jackson's genocidal removal of the natives of Georgia and its surround. He was soon followed by Polk's War of agression against Mexico that stole half of Mexico's lands. The heavy hand of congress would be felt once commerce between the states exploded after the Civil War.
Returning to the 1787 constitution, read its Preamble, for it's the philosophical rationale that's ideally supposed to inform the government's actions. Read it with the original emphasises in place and take note of them. Then read the Bill of Rights. Now read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those all embody the Spirit of '76 and an executive-less government by democratic assembly is the type of People's Government that informs the Spirit. The government we have today would be anethema to any of the Revolutionary "Founders," whereas reactionaries from Hamilton to Jackson, to Polk, to Reagan would love today's Imperium.
By golly, I enjoyed that! I wish i could write with such clarity. Envy, envy.....
All it takes is practice and a critical eye when it comes to editing. But then I was a composition instructor at the college level for several years; so, I do have some practice. I also wrote fiction for awhile in the early 1990s that was very helpful. The above homework assignment once the books are procured would take about a week or so given the variables of time availability and reading speed. I've found alibris to be a great source for used books at mostly very cheap prices.
As with the Civil war part of this thread, you can see a whole lot of important US history is swept under the rug. I have a small mountain of books I need to read to expand the areas I lack depth in, but where to find the time?
Alibris is my favorite spot. I get most of my books from them.
I'll try to edit before posting, maybe that will help some....I won't catch up to you though.
manning120
"So you're saying the ending of slavery never became an objective of Lincoln or the Union?"
More a by-product rather than an objective. You have to understand that slavery was on its way out in any case. The industrilization of farming would have ended it in any case quite soon.
Of course it was ended without the consent of the governing whites/Spanish/Creoles, etc. It was ended wiithout the consent of black slaveowners too, when you lose a war, consent becomes moot.
The reason slavery ended in Kentucky, Tennessee, Maryland, and Missouri was because slavery was ended in the Confederacy, they were hoisted on their own petard as it were obviously. You can't deny some states something and permit others to keep it.
"I don't think one has to have ancestors who were slaves to be at least disturbed at McDonnell's omission of slavery. I don't have such ancestors."
It was a celebration of Confederate history, not slavery. The two simply are not synonymous to me. Others feel differently. I don't approve of slavery obviously, but I see no need to confuse one thing with the other. But I detest grievance politics and race baiting so I would feel that way. Thats what I felt the protests were about.
Once again, if these protesters felt strongly enough to raise such a stink about so little, how is it they aren't protesting slavery or doing anything about it? Why nop protest against black slaveowners? See what I mean, its much more than their simplified stance.
Veritas April 19th, 2010 5:27 pm -- More than likely, the protesters against McDonnell's failure to mention slavery oppose it everywhere. I sure do. Now would be a good time, though, to point out to those complaining about the Confederacy specifically where and to what extent slavery still exists.
Just so we aren't misled on Mr. Lincoln's intent:
Accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in 1858, Lincoln delivered his famous speech: "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." ..Wikipedia
On a deeper level..
Looks like we are going to have to reach some kind of new definition of our government. "Are we a Democracy or a Republic? The old Republican form of Democracy brings us to where we are now. "Consent of the Governed" is not an operative concept in America.
I disagree greatly with the governor of Virginia. ANY history of the Confederacy MUST include slavery because the point at issue that caused the Civil War was expansion of slavery into the territories, NOT the survival of slavery in the South.
What I stated was Lincoln's intent at the Civil War's onset. As the Civil War progressed and the North slid toward defeat, Lincoln was pressed to find ANY tool that would destabilize the South, that tool became known as the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not free ALL the slaves, only those in Confederate controlled territory (Recall that Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee were all slave states yet kept from joining the Confederacy by various means). This half-measure points out the political expediency of the Proclamation. Furthermore, the war itself did NOT end slavery. Slavery could only be ended through a constitutional amendment. But prior to the Civil War's onset, there was a last-gasp effort to avoid conflict with the advancing of the "Corwin Amendment": "This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so." Lincoln had this to say about it: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution ... 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. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." It's truely ironic that the unratified 13th amendment would have institutionalized slavery inperpetuity, while the ratified 13th abolished slavery. By 1864, Lincoln had changed his mind about eliminating slavery and put the passage and ratification of the required constitutional amendment into the Republican Party's 1864 Election Platform.
There's a lot of discussion about the use of coercion of Southern and Border states to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, which is a another can of worms. My take is that the 13th and 14th amendments were "Victor's Laws" that would never have been ratified even in the face of defeat. That isn't saying I disagree with either amendment, I don't; rather, I'm just acknowledging the historical reality. And now, on to your other comment.
"the removal of these two fine specimens of southern manhood from their Gubanatorial seats."
Why do that? They're playing their part to "get a populace that is so frightened, it will run into the arms of the neoliberals no matter what they do" (see Diana's post above).
Sioux Rose
Rich makes good points about the racist components and gathering storm within the Republican party. HOWEVER, that then becomes a device for deflection, because by painting the picture of a retrograde "other" side/team, the IMPLICATION is that Mr. Obama stands above and beyond all that. That he, as leadership product, is unique!
A truer portrait would be one that explained the inanity of such robust rebellion against the current president who has differed from his repugnant predecessor on exceedingly narrow, if any, grounds. Then a wiser case might be made for the failure of policies implemented by BOTH parties. Of course that damning truth is the one thing that must not be uttered, along with any call to lessen the hemorrhaging of taxpayers' money to the MIC.
And how 'bout The Southern Republican Leadership Council... couldn't they shorten the moniker to "Oxymorons, Inc."?
Sioux Rose
Professor: I always appreciate the nod from a deep thinker such as yourself. And I caught your comment about the burden of living in such morally bankrupt times. Keep in mind that from the perspective of the Bahai faith, the TEACHER represents one of the highest callings. In our attempts to educate others, we do our part to TRY to turn the tide. Ultimately it will shift. Ocean waves roll BACK under themselves in order to gain forward momentum. I believe historical cycles follow a similar pattern, and thus the current inversion will at some point be followed by a massive progressive surge forward. The test comes down to retaining endurance... so we can be there, with minds and bodies intact, to appreciate the upcoming phase.
Oh dear, FR has sunk to a new low. He has no business sitting in his comfy couching in NY attacking my state like that ! Why, if he had the brains and balls to admit why Deeds lost and Mcdonnell won, he wouldn't be engaged in all this silly race-baiting nonsense. Now you listen close, Frankie boy. We're tired of the Democratic Party selling us out and no amount of your silly race baiting, political junkie, or whatever social hot button issues you try to ramble out will hide the fact that the Democrats have FAILED to govern as PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL POPULISTS and until they learn, well they'll just have to GO DOWN IN FLAMES just like they did last year in November.
Confederate History Month. Reminds me of all those 'hell, no i ain't fergittin' fools reenacting a famous battle which I assume would be one that the confederates won no matter if they lost.
Instead, now for a whole month they can wear their gray/grey uniforms and in between cases of beer of revelry and trips down the road to pick up their next meal of 'road kill', they can pop outside and fire off a few rounds and several 'cuss' word to 'fire up' their adrenalin deficient egos. Hee haw!
Sometimes it even makes me want to forget history.
samosamo
Yes, the Confederacy had a history, you should learn about it sometime. Its quite intresting.
Some other time my friend, I am still reading and studying up on the origins of all the screwed up religions from judeo christianity, catholic christians, islamics and the buddhists. Also read a lot of Thomas Paines stuff, you know like, 'Commons Sense', 'Rights of Man', 'Age of Reason', 'Essay on Dreams', Biblical Blasphemy', 'Examination of the Prophecies' and I am waiting for some other of his books where he wrote so much about a functioning democracy and it really reminds me of the the things teachers tried to teach to us as kids, but these days all that just seems like a far distant trip to a world I wish was still here instead of the disney fantasy land fluff and crap. And what luck, I have just found a place where I can get 'Christian Mythology Unveiled' by Logan Mitchell, a series of lectures ""1842. According to the ignorant prejudices which priestcraft has woven through the human mind, the subjects treated of in the following Lectures are considered as sacred ground by the votaries of superstition; and therefore every attempt to examine them with freedom, or to expose them to the test of reason and free discussion, appears shocking to the blindly bigoted, and alarming to interested priests.""
samosamo
Good luck with that voyage of discovery!
"studying up on the origins of all the screwed up religions from judeo christianity, catholic christians, islamics and the buddhists"
That ought to keep you busy for the next hundred years. They are all intermixed in some way or the other and almost all encourage the same action except the militantancy of Islam, though some other have a hint.
It all comes down to belief. None make sense in a predictable way, not even chistianity. If you believe in God as I do, its simply faith, if you don't, you simply don't.
And consider the perversions of teachings exemplified by the Crusades, the Spanish Conquistadores, the Inquisition............
Your head will swim!
Thomas Paine however fits in qutie well with the Confederacy and their reasoning.
Be Well
Not at all, just finding the beginnings says enough as to why people were made to believe in what ever rubbish was popular at the time and once really hooked few ever tried to questions the why fors and what fors and how toos, because the pain of torture and/or death scared the jubeezus into them. And I found it ridiculous to have to 'believe' something that comes out of a book that is not only hard to believe but is poorly written.
And I am further back than the inquisitions, crusades and the european invasion of the western hemisphere to a point where all religious ideology came from and basically none of the modern day social clubs were extant when the Egyptians were building the foundations of what has evolved into today's thought control centers of 'belief'. So what if christianity didn't exit until well into the 1st century c.e. and there being no evidence that the NT was written before the 3rd c.e. or there abouts. Maybe information more people should consider before waking up wondering how they became a catholic, jew, protestant or islamic; but you're correct on that it is all a belief and how well that plays in to the subverted role of mind control which says it best this way: "give me a child before age 7 and he is mine for life".
I am not sure how you are using the term confederacy and trying to make like what Thomas Paine wrote, thought and discussed with Washingtion, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and others about what would or should be a part of the new republic's democracy has to do with the southern confederacy which was a hold out in giving up the cheap labor of slaves which could really be a beginning of modern day corporate ideology of the hence refinement into milton crap nose friedman's 'unfettered free market capitalism', a proven disaster.
Something else that was curious to me as a kid and found out that middle eastern people were named karrem, ali, allah, kabar and such but the people of middle east in the bible are like matthew, mark, luke, john, thomas, james, peter, all anglo names then I found that the bible was a 'interpretation' of the english king james' version of the dead see scrolls.
So I did get a little bit curious about why I was lied to as a child so as to form some kind of convenient 'belief' that supposedly doesn't confer a belief into some kind of legitimate hocus pocus of unimaginable complexity where there is a lot less to real spirituality through its simplicity.
""Contrary to popular 'belief', christianity was not created in an atmosphere of love and peace; rather, it was formed at the ends of swords pointed at members of the clergy and laity alike. Bloody battles were fought over doctrine at every turn, each tiny and ultimately meaningless detail wrestled over tooth and nail. Bishops and their hooligans appeared at synods and slaughtered those who disagreed with them, shameful behavior that occurred in numerous places where christianity spread."" D. M. Murdock
Thus, if it need be considered a belief to agree with any assessments I have written, then this is the belief I have, but I find it is based on more reality than realizing one day that I am of such and such faith without a hint as to how I got there. You're right about all of them, and that includes islam, are intermixed but I will leave that for your hundred year voyage of discovery.
Tuocha
samosamo
"Contrary to popular 'belief', christianity was not created in an atmosphere of love and peace; rather, it was formed at the ends of swords pointed at members of the clergy and laity alike."
In the early days it was much like Islam, very militant and unforgiving, Islam continued that route to today, its a very unforgiving and militant relegion.
The King James version is an interpretation of Old English which was an interpretation of German which was an interpretation of Latin which was an interpretation of Greek which was an interpretation of Hebrew. Full of misinformation.
As to names, remember the Jews are not Arabs or other middle eastern ethnicities other than Jews, but I'm sure their names were changed from Hebrew.
As to the matter of the Confederacy, simply that it was inherent in the freedom, small government, states rights that Paine and most of the others assembled and fought for.
Peace
You remind me of both Mary Beth Norton and my history professor in college. Did you major in history by any chance?
One degree is in History if you mean me....I suspect Karlof has a Doctorate.
Well, I thank you as you seem to be up on the creation of these mythologies that have guided and controlled so much of what is happening today. But you still seem for no reason to assume that all of islam is a totally and absolutely unforgiving and militant religion which it is not, just as the jewish religion has members trying to live with something that is quirky and unjust but retain a sense of decorum that seemingly ignores the 'horrors of what is done in the jewish name.
And I won't go into the vagaries that are inherent in translation after translation of some very old pre-historical and mostly unverifiable rubbish that in most all likely hood has no basis in reality.
As for the confederacy, I just can't give it the thought it should deserve because it was a very sad time for this country and with its undertones of a 'low costs and high profits' agenda I can accept that it is a history important to some for some reasons.
I will add that anything pertaining to modern religion has come from the much earlier 'awakening' from the astrotheological study of the the heavens which in its own way has a beauty all its own.
The best I can say to you about the militancy of Islam is to read the Koran. It tells you everything you need to know about what the Islamists are and why. Not all are fundementlists of course. Its the only religion I know of that if you want to leave they will kill you.
The Jews get a bad rap though not guiltless.
Almost all religions simply have their basis in common sense laws and mandates from their period.
The history of the Confederacy is important to southners because its our history, we were the Confederacy. It was a very sad time for our country, but the south doesn't "cotton" to being told what to do, not then, not now. The Congress is playing a dangerous game as is this administration.
"Its the only religion I know of that if you want to leave they will kill you."
This is very very very incorrect.
How so? There have been MANY reported instances of it and some murders attributed to it. They have certainly stoned people to death. They have certainly killed family members for various infractions.
The Islamists I have seen personally are a scarey bunch, they are dangerous.
I would consider the judaist, catholics, protestants, buddhist and the islamist all a scary bunch of cut throat murdering mind controlling low lifes as they all pretend to be acting upon the desires, wishes and commands of some strange invisible spook that only talks to certain individuals about what the rest of the crowds should be like and do.
That is the best reason to go back into history to find the beginnings of any religion and what is and why it does as it does. And I consider events like the crusades and the inquisitions that have come before to be ample reason not to belong to any of the mentioned groups above and too bad about the confederacy and even more so that its adherents wanting to 'never forget' and are ready at a drop of the hat to swarm into armed conflict that really does put them into the same grouping of the above mentioned fanatical ignorant fools. And it really does go without saying, a reason for anyone to arm themselves so as to protect themselves from anyone of the above mentioned, who are clearly perceived as to know better about how others are to act and live than they themselves know.
Possibly, it all means that the dumbstreamed consumerists have been so bored with their dumbstream faux sporting events that now it is reality show time to get it on to once again butcher, rob, rape and kill anyone that looks the least bit different, xenophobic I believe the word is.
samosamo
Naw, we're not all that bad. Especially us Irish Catholic/Protestant types. We are a peaceful bunch if we aren't in Ireland! :)
Seriously, any religion can be perverted by cranks and extremists. The Islamists, The Baptist bunch out of Kansas, the turmoil in Ireland, Missionaries that go bonkers, etc. It can also be a calming and controlling force.
As to the Confederacy, I believe you mistook my meaning. Our history is not to be tampered with, not to be remanufactured to suit someones political outlook and southners won't abide it. But arming ourselves? we are already well armed! The raceist, militia, violence, t-bagger crap is exactly that Crap. Its simply democratic politics to keep the base loyal.
No kidding, you will find FAR more of the militia types up north and in the mid-west and Pacific northwest than in the south. Far more in each region.
Yeah, I forget about the Irish, which may be where my ancestral roots are, and pity the poor Irish, other minorities faired better at times than the Irish.
I don't dare 'fiddle' with the history of the confederacy just as other societies and nations as most have just as sordid history as any other which speaks well and true enough for themselves. But I try to stay informed as there is the possibility that that history could mysteriously change or disappear over night by those who would want to control the past, known as 'Ministry of Truth'.
I would think there are as many militia groups anywhere and more than others where the really not so benign game of 'paint ball' wars are played because just replace the paint ball weapons with real guns and viola, militia.
Too late.
These very same lieing sacks of crap , for a year up to Presidents Obama election followed , tail gated me, gang-stalked and gaslighted me, 24/7 because I had a huge custom made sign in my car proclaiming my support for Obama.
How did I know it was right wing Christian lunatics who did this to me , easy ,,,,,,,,,
All these tailgating freaks had McCain/Palin bumper stickers, Jesus bumper stickers, support your troops , united we stand and american flags all over their cars.
I was surrounded and mobbed by these torture freaks everywhere I went 24/7.
yelling racial slurs at the people is mild , when you understand what these torture freaks are capable of, and if they threaten you and tell you to look over your shoulder the rest of your life, you should be very afraid.They mean it.
Rich is seldom off-target in his analyses. His observations in this article are correct.
Racism permeates the "tea party" rallies as well as the Republican ranks, including their leadership. Denying overt racism is senseless. And those who try to hide behind racism's code words only deceive themselves.
Frankly I found this to be no literary treat, but simply another "demonize", "trash" and "divert" article.
It simply plays to the prejudices of some folks that seem to feel a need to cast themselves as superior, informed and intellectually enlightened while spewing stereotypes left and right. (pun intended)
It is disconcerting to witness the dishonesty and gullibility inherent in such displays. If we can't be honest we are fooling ourselves, no one else.
I saw in the NYT the other day that it turns out that the average Tea Party type IS white and male, older, but better educated, with a higher income than presented by the democrats. I still look for the proof of all this excessive violence, racist name calling, etc. The claims are there as Mr. Rich just put forth once again, but not one shred of fact to support the claims beyond the few instances reported over and over.
I believe its more dangerous to lie to yourself than someone else.
Many of the tea partiers are older, white males and females enjoying government-run programs (Medicare and Social Security) but are railing against government-run programs. Every one of them should surrender their Medicare and Social Security cards (fat chance). They selfishly worry that younger generations might reap the same benefits they enjoy. They're disgusting to watch as they display ignorance, suggesting that whatever level of education they managed to obtain has not benefited them.