Today is the anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, ending (we thought) the Civil War — which makes it a good day to look at the controversy over Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s declaration of April as “Confederate History Month.” The announcement seems to have taken most of the country by complete surprise, which shows how little the rest of the nation really knows about how things work “down hyeah.” To native-born Southerners, McDonnell’s declaration is pretty much business as usual, even his, er, forgetfulness regarding a little thing called slavery.
If you’ve been in the South long enough, you know that there are some white folks who are a wee bit overly concerned with the war. Folks who will argue with you, till you’re both blue in the face, that slavery was not a cause of the war; it was states’ rights, dammit, that brought on the War of Northern Aggression. I don’t have the space or time here to get into all the long, convoluted arguments over the Civil War, the reasons for it, how it was conducted, and what happened afterward. But I do want to talk about history itself.
As a history enthusiast, it pains me that the whole subject of the Civil War is, well, so painful, and so politicized. There doesn’t seem to be any way to acknowledge those who took part in the Civil War and everything included in it (soldiers on both sides, war resisters on both sides, Union sympathizers in the South, and Confederate sympathizers in the North, slaves, the Underground Railroad, abolitionists, women’s roles on both sides, northern industrialists’ interests, and so forth) without stirring up rancor and confusion.
There’s no problem per se, as I see it, with Virginia wanting to raise some tourist money by calling attention to the fact that much of the war was fought in that state, and urging visitors to see the battle sites. The problem, though, is that acknowledging and honoring history isn’t the only thing that’s going on. Civil War commemorations are too often wrapped up in politics, and such is the case with McDonnell’s deliberate omission of slavery from his declaration (other Republican governors have included it in their Confederate History Month statements).
Such is also the case at Richmond’s Museum of the Confederacy, where the store stocks far-right books and information on race and politics, as was pointed out in Chris Kromm’s excellent examination of the current brouhaha on the Institute for Southern Studies’ Web site. And such is the case, frankly, at nearly all Southern towns’ Confederate memorials, where rarely is heard a disparaging word on the subject of slavery.
The romanticization of the Confederacy started immediately after the war ended — the “Lost Cause” rhetoric, the ridiculous “chivalrous knight” view of antebellum southern planters, and all the other justifications for the hotheads of the planter class bringing Armageddon down upon the region — and that romanticization continues today. Honoring history is one thing, and I’m in favor of it; in fact, there should be a lot more of it. But twisting history for the sake of making bitter political points is disgraceful.
This article appears in Apr 6-12, 2010.
The south wanted to either be left alone or leave the union. They decided to leave the union which was an option each state had in place as a condition of joining the union when it first came about. The south didn’t leave slavery, they left the union. The north claimed that the south couldn’t do this and so Lincoln took action in order to preserve the union. It wasn’t until after the war had begun that Lincoln made slavery a central issue of the war because his war effort was going so poorly. Also many southern sympathizers in the north were furious at Lincoln for marching troops south to wage war against fellow countrymen. What the south really wanted to do on it’s own terms, was end slavery and control it’s own destiny. The south has always been blamed for starting the war, this is purely jibberish. Yes, the south did technically fire the first shot but they did so only after repeated attempts to get the federal troops to withdraw from Fort Sumter. Lincoln did many things through executive order that were totally unconstitutional but he already believed that what the south had done was illegal as well. This is another example of many where states’ rights versus federal power come into play. What the north never accepted back then and still refuse to mostly accept today, is the fact of how the south has always had it’s own unique culture and personal identity totally apart from that of the north. The south has always had a spirit and a way of life equal to yet distinctively different from the north. The north has always resented this truth. The north won a war but the south wasn’t defeated. The south lives on and people of the south are still proud to be a southerner. Most of America’s historical origins began in the south with the settlement at Jamestown and the agrarian farmers. The father of our country and the constitution we’re both native to the south. George Washington and James Madison. Would America have been possible without these two great men of the south? Very unlikely.
This is not the only Civil War History scandal in Virginia.
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/civil-war-shame-in-virginia/
What was the reason for establishing the CSA? Why not let the VP, CSA, Alexander Stephens, tell us the major reason for its founding in this excerpt of the Cornerstone speech given Mar 1861, a month before Ft. Sumter or go to link:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
..”The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth”…
Every other after the fact reason given for this Lost Cause romanticism is simply a revisionist excuse to explain the inexcusable. The CSA never had any intention of phasing out slavery.
Denise, Ever hear of Eli Whitney and the Cotton Gin? Slavery was dying of natural causes and the advancement of machinery. It was President Lincoln who even suggested the plan of deporting all slaves back to Africa. Lincoln himself never saw blacks as equals yet claimed to be on a righteous mission to save the union and free the slaves. The hypocrisy is outrageous to say the least. Most people in the south didn’t care about slavery one way or the other. It was just a fact of life about as common as seeing Walmart stores around today. Only about 5% of people in the south had slaves. They were primarily the wealthy plantation owners who had thousands of acres of land. It wasn’t that whites in the south loved slavery, they were just mostly powerless to do much about it. People today have such a Hollywood version of the south and so they link the KKK and the Confederacy together as being one. The klan came about as a result of reconstruction post-civil war era. It was chiefly a tactic to pressure the northern carpet baggers and profiteers to leave and go home. As time went on the klan grew into a different beast, one in which it was never meant to become. Hollywood and the media has always demonized the south and all things southern for so long that people who aren’t from the south actually believe it to be the gospel truth. You’d think slaves were still on the plantations and the klan was chasing black people all over the place if you go by what the media puts out these days. It’s nuts!! The north was using southern agriculture to prop up northern industry and banks through tariffs and taxation. This is what really caused the Civil War.
Longstreet, as they say your assertions, my facts.
The cotton gin invented/implemented in 1793. The annual cotton harvest in the south was about 183,000 pounds before its invention.
Twenty years (1810) after its invention, the annual cotton harvest was 93 million pounds. Enslaved population in 1793 approximately 600,000; enslaved population in 1810 was 1.1 million; and by 1860 almost 3.9 million.
The cotton gin lead to an explosive need for slaves in the south due to 1) explosive growth volume cotton to be handled; 2) planters did not have to pay wages to the enslaved; 3) The us of cheap labor of European immigrants didn’t happen because they went primarily to cities for a diversity of jobs and not to work in dreadful jobs on plantations and if they did, they wanted payment (often as overseers who were looked down upon by the planter class).
Quite the opposite effect on which you hang your argument. The cotton gin pushed the growth of large plantations with slaves of necessity and impoverished small single non-slave owning farmers who became the canon fodder of the Civil War.
The continued citation of the cotton gin as the reason slavery would die out if the south were just left alone is a result of the poor sound bite teaching of US history.
This is hilarious. Once again, Frank Griffin is having a conversation with himself. He is making up names and going back and forth with himself to give off the illusion that someone is actually givng him the time of day. As we know it’s normally the real posters on here that do recognize him for only the right wing sickness he regularly posts in a very continuous, psychotic manner.
Frank, it is really odd that you presume to know what my political affiliation is. You don’t. My affiliation is to documented facts and not ideological fantasies.
If the 2000 word intro in the Cornerstone speech to reach the main point bothers you, then read the Mississippi Causes of Succession, and count to word 50. This was the companion piece to the Mississippi Ordinance of Succession, Jan 1861.
“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”
LOL. Wow.
Come on Frank, keep up. Like tennis, you posted, I posted. You posted again and I responded. And now this is your riposte???
Are you having trouble remembering your own argument? If not, why are you back again in a, “paragraph 22 point”? WE moved on.
Don’t worry though, I do count to ten before speaking with cranky children or the willfully obtuse.
BTW, don’t leave your day job for gambling. You lose. Boy, I hope I won that Howdy Dody doll I have been searching for.
Excellent posts, Denise. Thanks.
Hi Frank. I do sparkle. Your question was answered. I take no responsibility for your willfulness in not comprehending English. Tell me in which language you do comprehend and I will gladly respond.
It does seem that we need a new topic since no one else wants to talk with you. Suggestions anyone?
Harry, thank you.