McDonnell: Slavery Wasn’t Significant
You’ve probably already heard that Virginia proclaimed the month of April as “Confederate History Month” but have you read the actual proclamation?
WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present; and
WHEREAS, Confederate historical sites such as the White House of the Confederacy are open for people to visit in Richmond today; and
WHEREAS, all Virginians can appreciate the fact that when ultimately overwhelmed by the insurmountable numbers and resources of the Union Army, the surviving, imprisoned and injured Confederate soldiers gave their word and allegiance to the United States of America, and returned to their homes and families to rebuild their communities in peace, following the instruction of General Robert E. Lee of Virginia, who wrote that, “…all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace.”; and
WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
What about this line?
it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War
McDonnell caused quite a controversy by not mentioning slavery. Today he tells us that this wasn’t an accident:
Notably absent from McDonnell’s proclamation was any mention of slavery. Yesterday, McDonnell explained that it wasn’t “significant” enough to merit a mention:
McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.“
I grew up in the mid-South and there is a lot of nostalgic Confederate revisionism in that area. Everyone and their mother thinks that their ancestors fought for the Confederacy but they weren’t slaveowners. Of course the truth is more complicated. In my own family, one branch fought for the union and the other branch was slaveowners. In fact, in school we were taught that slavery wasn’t the main issue that caused the Civil War – it was industrialization vs. agriculture and “states rights.” There are a lot of references to fighting for “our way of life” on Civil War memorials. I’m not sure the the U.S. has really faced its historical role in slavery yet and that may be why Civil War revisionism still persists 150 years later.
Tags: Bob McDonnell, racism, revisionism, VA-Gov
The thing about Confederate revisionism is that the people who subscribe to it are typically working class white people who — during the age of the Civil War — would not have been let into the Big House via the front door, either. But much like the current strategy of the Republican Party — the wealthy plantation owners and pols worked up the fear and resentment cards among white people who had no real interest in the continued existence of slavery to get those people to go to war for them. Yes, plantation owners and their sons went to war too — not in the numbers that their poorer brethren did, and with much more to gain than their poorer brethren did, too.
It is an odd bit of business that the people of the Love It or Leave It Crowd could be so overly invested in revering and romanticizing a portion of Southern history that is centered on sedition, treason, slavery. There is nothing to be proud of there — because this was certainly not a fight for broader liberty. Which is why they won’t mention slavery — it is a reminder that they LOST and that they are still losing. It is definitely an inconvenience to give lip service to *liberty* when you idolize a time when *liberty* didn’t have to be so broadly shared.
I have friends who still refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression.
MJ–I have STUDENTS who still refer to the Civil War as such (not Delaware kids–disclaimer).
You’re missing the big picture. This is what the Tea Party folks are advocating a return to — not slavery, of course, but this backward-looking reverence toward a whitewashed past (no pun intended).
McDonnell is kind of right in that slavery was not initially the BIG issue and reason for war that we’re often taught that it is. The biggest issue was, in fact, states rights. Of course, the main thing that the federal government and several of the states disagreed over is whether or not their citizens had the right to own other people. At first, Lincoln would have been happy to leave slavery in place to preserve the Union. It was only after he saw that was immpossible, and after a significant victory (Antietam) that he made the pr move to make the war primarily over emancipation. That being said, there’s no way to honestly parse things so as to not make it about slavery. No slavery, no Civil War.
The currently relevant part is what Geezer refered to. The Tea Partiers (as well as mainstream GOPers) are doing many of the same things now. They’re using the cover of “states’ rights” to fight against the real things they don’t like. It’s not slavery this time, just HCR and the rule of Democrats in general.
Plus, yeah, a lot of people like to glorify the greatest period of human rights abuses and mass treason in our country’s history. But without actually admiting that that’s what they’re doing, of course.
Scott, disagree. All the evidence is that what bothers the tea party people is the possibility of enfranchisement for people of color. Democrats, hcr, it’s not about them, it’s about race politics.
Whatever Lincoln’s evolution on the subject, it’s historically inaccurate to say the Civil War was NOT about slavery. Much of the support within and for the Union was from abolitionists.
So say I, great great grandneice of William Sherman B… And Ulysses Simpson B. 😉
Human rights abuses? Would that have been when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and censored the press? 😉
The War between the States was the fault of hot headed slave owners in SC. Everyone else got pulled into it.
Ah, the voice of the self-loathing black man chimes in. Yes, pay no attention to the literally billions of words written by professional historians on the causes (plural) of the Civil War. Go instead with the insights of someone who confuses “do” for “due.”
Carry on.
“Human rights abuses? Would that have been when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and censored the press?”
Typical Republican — human suffering takes a back seat to their political rights (but not others’ political rights, of course).
Don’t forget, though, that there were those who were slaveowners who fought for the Union. One, in fact, was a fellow by the name of Ulysses S. Grant. Robert E. Lee, on the other hand, finished emancipating his father-in-law’s slaves (as per George Washington Parke Custis’s will) while serving as the estate’s executor during the war — and may, at most, have personally owned only one slave during his lifetime (and the evidence on that is ambiguous).
Am I white-washing slavery? No — I am pointing out that the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried as some would like to make it.
Comment by Geezer on 7 April 2010 at 2:44 pm:
Ah, the voice of the self-loathing black man chimes in.
And the voice of the hate-mongering liberal chimes in to toss out a racial slur.
Comment by Geezer on 7 April 2010 at 2:47 pm:
“Human rights abuses? Would that have been when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and censored the press?”
Typical Republican — human suffering takes a back seat to their political rights (but not others’ political rights, of course).
Yet, on the other hand, George W. Bush was evilevilevil for going to bat for human rights while doing none of those things.
Comment by Brooke on 7 April 2010 at 2:18 pm:
Scott, disagree. All the evidence is that what bothers the tea party people is the possibility of enfranchisement for people of color. Democrats, hcr, it’s not about them, it’s about race politics.
Then you can certainly point to actual evidence that proves this. You know — supply links to reputable sources that actually prove what your biases lead you to assert.
where’s the slur?
Making shit up again to make yourself feel good, doctor?
“Self-loathing black man” constitutes a slur. So if you are looking for racism, simply find the nearest mirror and look in it. The face staring directly back at you will be the racist.
Update: turns out slavery did play some sort of role in the conflict. Go figure.
yeah right, moose. thanks for the laugh.
and oooooh, mirror/look/at/it – never heard that one before!
so if someone called Foley or McGreevey a self-loathing gay man, would that be a gay bashing slur?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M-BcQLEAJY
If all the evidence they had was their party ID, then yes.
At the end of the civil war the union should have turned over all the property of the seditionists to the overwhelming population of the now free blacks living there.True FREE elections should have been held and we wouldn’t have gone through JIM CROW and SEPERATE but EQUAL.We wouldn’t have the LOSERS of a war against OUR country STILL FIGHTING it’s losing war AND FLYING it’s TRAITOROUS FLAG!!! I SPIT ON THAT FUCKING FLAG!!!
“Am I white-washing slavery? No — I am pointing out that the issue is not nearly as cut-and-dried as some would like to make it.”
On the contrary, slavery was quite cut and dried for the slaves. But of course, for you it’s about the slave owners, not the slaves.
ANM: Here’s a definition of self-loathing:
The term self-hatred can refer to either a strong dislike for oneself, one’s actions, or a strong dislike or hatred of one’s own race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, species or any other corporate group of which one may be a member. When used in the latter context it is generally defined as hatred of one’s identity based on the demographic in question, as well as a desire to distance oneself from this identity.
After reading his ravings for four years, I think David Anderson’s writings and political philosophy constitute one long “desire to distance himself” from his ethnic identify.
BTW, I don’t go to his blog to piss on his rug. You should spend more time there, where thinking like yours passes intellectual muster.
Got it, Geezer — minorities who think for themselves and don’t follow the herd mentality of the group are “self-loathing”. In other words, you expect blacks like David to stay on the plantation. How very Democrat of you!
I guess, then, that your definition would make your average white liberal a self-loathing white person, right? Or are whites free to hold any opinion they want without being so labeled, perhaps due to to their moral and intellectual superiority?
moose, your barrel of excuses must be dry by now…it’s getting more laughable by the attempt!