Southerners looking to share their Confederate holiday

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Southerners looking to share their Confederate holiday
'Confederacy has gotten a bad rap,' says one supporter of efforts to recognize region's legacy

By Dahleen Glanton | Tribune Correspondent
March 22, 2009

ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.

With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.

Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and Florida traditionally observe Confederate History Month in April. Georgia, which has recognized it by proclamation since 1995, recently passed a bill in the state Senate making it official.

Most Southern states recognize Confederate Memorial Day as a legal holiday. Some celebrate it on the June birthday of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, but Texas and Arkansas observe it on Jan. 19, the federal holiday for slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-race-confederacy_bdmar22,0,7235836.story

[willing dwarf]

1. Well maybe they just want to take their states and try seceding again?

[Jeep789]

2. I always wonder if I would have supported Lincoln in trying

to stop them the first time. There are things I love about the South but their leaders have never been one of them.

[Captain Hilts]

7. My people were all in England or Wales. So, I guess, we supported the South. nt

[No Elephants]

14. There is a good chance that your ancestors were against slavery by

the time that the South committed treason.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLA_enUS290US291&q=British+anti+slavery+in+by+1860

However, I would not hold against you (or favor you for) what your ancestors did or did not do then, only what you do and do not do today.

[Hannah Bell]

82. britain funded the south.

[Occam Bandage]

94. Funded? Not really. British merchants happily

sold the Confederates food, supplies, guns, and ammunition, and British dockyards were perfectly willing to build ships for Confederate buyers. Rebel gold spends the same as Yankee gold, after all. But the British government did not offer direct financial assistance to the South, and popular anti-Confederate sentiment among Britons kept the British government (and thus the French government) from lending either recognition or support to the South.

[Hannah Bell]

98. Although the South never succeeded in convincing foreign powers to intervene against the North,

cotton diplomacy was successful in obtaining financial help from abroad. This came in the form of loans and bonds, which Confederate Treasurer Christopher G. Memminger guaranteed with cotton. The Confederate Treasury Department issued $1.5 million in cotton certificates during the war for acquisitions abroad. One such loan backed by cotton was the Erlanger loan, signed on October 28, 1862, and modified on January 3, 1863. This loan, amounting to $15 million, was secured by cotton. At the time cotton was worth twenty-four pence a pound, and the Erlanger loan made cotton available to holders at six pence per pound.

This reliance on cotton for the security of loans, bonds, and certificates placed a great deal of responsibility on the Produce Loan Office, whose agents had to ensure that planters would fulfill government subscriptions of cotton at a time when many planters were unwilling to sell to the government. Ultimately, however, cotton enabled the Confederacy to realize $7,678,591.25 in foreign exchange.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/kingcotton.htm


"The British journals give prominence, in connection with this loan, to the House of Erlanger...as, however, the cotton is to be valued in sterling, the coupons to be paid in the same money, the real operators of the affair must be Englishmen. The London Times...comes out warmly in favor of the bonds...and has already puffed them to a premium..."

Harpers' Weekly, 1863

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/april/european-confederate-load.htm

[Occam Bandage]

101. Yep. As I said, British merchants were happy to trade with the South.

That does not mean "Britain financed the South."

[Hannah Bell]

107. The loans weren't "trades". They were loans, with cotton as collateral.

To give the South access to foreign exchange.

This is called "financing a war".

It wasn't "merchants". The loans were floated by banking houses & subscribers included people in the top ranks of the British gov't, e.g. Gladstone.


"It may appear somewhat startling that the Confederates should be able to borrow money in
Europe while the Federal Government has been unable to obtain a shilling from that usually
liberal and enterprising quarter. But the ... risk ... of never being paid at all, in case the
South should be subdued and re-annexed ... is so slight that, of itself, it need not deter any
man from sharing in an 8 per cent. loan."

(The Economist, March 21, 1863, p. 309)

[Occam Bandage]

111. A banker providing cash now for cheap goods at a later date is indeed trade.

Many people saw the South as a financial opportunity. They knew that running cotton past the blockades was risky, and so they basically bought cotton futures at the rock-bottom price that the precarious state of the South provided (and yes, the loans would have been effectively repaid in cotton). It was nothing more than a high-risk investment with the possibility of huge reward.

To infer from investors making potentially profitable deals during the early stages of the war that there was widespread British support for the Confederacy or its war efforts is unfounded.

[Hannah Bell]

115. It's a loan of money capital. You're playing word games.

"It may appear somewhat startling that the Confederates should be able to borrow money in
Europe while the Federal Government has been unable to obtain a shilling from that usually
liberal and enterprising quarter. But the ... risk ... of never being paid at all, in case the
South should be subdued and re-annexed ... is so slight that, of itself, it need not deter any
man from sharing in an 8 per cent loan."

(The Economist, March 21, 1863, p. 309)


In March 1863, the Southern Confederacy floated a £3,000,000 loan issue in Europe. This loan is
often called the “Erlanger Loan” after its underwriter, Emile Erlanger and Company of Paris. The list of subscribers included British members of parliament and peers of the realm, two editors of The Times and other notables (New York Times, December 9, 1865).1 The offering was five times over-subscribed and John Slidell, Confederate Commissioner in France, enthused at this apparent “financial recognition of our independence, emanating from a class proverbially cautious and little given to be influenced by sentiment or sympathy.”2 The 8% yield referred to by The Economist (March 21, 1863) derived from coupon payments of 7% paid semiannually combined with an offering price set 10% below the bonds’ face value.3

In order for the holder to be sure of obtaining the cheap cotton, the Confederacy had to either win its struggle for independence or at least force the North to sue for peace. While there was some hope that the Union government might honour these bonds even if the Confederacy were defeated, the considerable risk that they would not made the bonds highly sensitive to news of the progress of the U.S. Civil War.5

[Occam Bandage]

116. Made by investors looking to make a buck off the temporarily cheap price of cotton.

That has nothing to do with Britain's lack of support for the Confederacy. Heck, even that Economist article argues against your underlying point: the Britons who made direct loans in 1863 did so without caring who won, since either way they'd be repaid.

I'm not sure why you think 'wealthy British traders thought they make a few shillings off the Confederacy' is a good counterpoint to 'the British populace did not support the Confederacy."

[Hannah Bell]

121. Britain's "official" policy was neutrality. Yet at the outset of the war,

as noted by the economist, the Union couldn't get access to capital at other than rates worse than offered to the South; thus greenbacks.

A significant segment of the ruling class of Britain supported the South. Had there not been stalemate between pro/anti ruling class factions, policy would have been support of the Union.

The sympathies of the average person are not represented by them, or by the opposed segment of the ruling class who were the prime movers of the abolitionist movement in England, both mostly on the basis of the future of their own investments in either free or slave labor.

Britain funded the South; that was my claim, & it's true.

[Thothmes]

132. How does this explain that British gun mnaufacturers

sold the United States government 500,000 rifle muskets and equipage between 1861 and 1863.

[Hannah Bell]

134. i'm not sure what you think needs explaining.

i'd also like to know where you get the figures (since the union had a strong weapons manufacture on its home territory).


"During the course of the War Between the States, both the Confederate States Government and the individual Southern States sought to import necessary supplies and material from Britain. These vital stores were delivered by blockade runners. Running the blockade was extremely dangerous, but also extremely profitable. Many blockade runners came in off the coast of Cape Fear, North Carolina, under the protection of Fort Fisher.

The great lack of arms of the CSA was overcome by importation of arms from abroad, mainly England. Around 400,000 arms of various types came from that powerhouse of industrialism of the era.

Britain was officially neutral but there was strong sympathy among segments of the English aristocracy for the Southern cause. The private English small arms makers had no problems with neutrality. They naturally wanted to sell as many arms as possible including to the South.

The Confederate authorities tried to purchase arms in an organized fashion, but communication was so slow that often instructions were obsolete before an agent reached England by ship. Confederate authorities thus tried to do the best they could under circumstances forced upon them.

Two Confederate-financed companies were established in Britain: Sinclair, Hamilton & Co. and Isaac Campbell & Co. The initials "SH over C" and the name "Isaac Campbell & Co". will be found on some arms. The South also established five primary English suppliers.

Among British companies established in the arms trade who acted as purchasers for the Confederate Agents were Bond, Freed & Co. and James, Kerr and Scott & Son. Arms acquired by each of these
suppliers can be determined by a capital letter stamped in the corner of the stock in the front of the butt tang."

http://www.americancivilwar.org.uk/news_whitworth-sharpshooter-rifle_21.htm



With the outbreak of Civil War in America, the new southern Confederacy realized that it could not meet its Army's requirement for modern weapons... The new Confederate government lost no time in dispatching an agent to Europe. The person selected was West Point educated, Massachusetts born, Caleb Huse....In order to facilitate this work, he was provided with a tremendously favorable letter of credit from Fraser, Trenholm & Company of Liverpool, part of the Trenholm banking empire. (This institution's rather colorful president, John Trenholm, of Charleston, South Carolina, was one of the inspirations for Margaret Mitchell's Rhett Butler.)

Huse reached Europe before most Federal arms purchasing agents had even left American shores. There he bought up a huge supply of reasonably modern weapons from several countries. By far his greatest coup though was a Confederate contract with the London Armoury Company. As much as the South wanted to get weapons from Enfield Lock, the English equivalent of Springfield Armory, this was not to be. In order for the British government to supply arms, they would have to give up their neutrality and recognize the Confederate government, which was not about to happen, at least not so early in the war. The Brits could however assist in obtaining a contract with one of their leading suppliers. This contract stipulated the delivery of machine made, parts interchangeable, three band Enfield Rifle Muskets. The parts interchangeable clause was the key. It required the highest quality work. It also allowed for easy repair in the field, especially given that the Confederate Quartermaster's Department would not be returning weapons to England for repairs...

The London Armoury Company was not only a manufactory but also controlled a consortium of small shops. With the Confederate order, almost all of the better quality contractors in London were committed to the southern cause. The Armory had to finish up a British contract and a small order from the State of Massachusetts before starting on the Southern order. By late 1861, London Armoury guns were being shipped to the Confederacy. It is often reported that all L.A.Co. muskets produced after the Huse contract were sent to the Confederacy. This isn't true. The company continued to supply the Crown, but shipped all their excess production to the southern states. Most of their 1863 output was destined to run the blockade. Almost all of the 1864 production went to the South, and even a portion of 1865's...

http://www.civilwarguns.com/enfld11.html.

[No Elephants]

162. Not "to intervene against the north." To intervene against the United States This was .

not South vs. North. Certain states that rebelled against the United States, not against the north, and formed a confederacy of states. the reason for the rebellion was extending slavery into the terrorities. The states that seceded happened to be located in the southern part of the United States, but this was rebel states vs. United STates, not south v. north (or north v. south).

[F.C.James]

70. I agree with you 100%

I love almost everything about the South .... except it's leaders.

The weather, the Scotch-Irish culture, the people (black and white) are as good as it gets.

But we Southerners have always been suckers (dare I say "fools"?) when it comes to choosing leaders. Our ancestors followed the lying Big Planters and ended up in the Civil War. And that was just the beginning.

I'm always reminded of what ol' Gene Talmadge (the self proclaimed friend of the farmers) said when he was caught stealing as Governor of Georgia in the 1930s.

"Of course I stole ! But I stole for y'all".

The sunovabitch got away with it. And his lineal descendants are still getting away with it.

[burning rain]

212. To each his own...

too many churches and trashy strip clubs for me.

[Lilith Velkor]

230. If Lincoln had had nukes

...then maybe.

[quickesst]

4. If it were only...

...the arrogant, holier than thou, stereotypical worshiping, and willfully ignorant "progressive" brainiacs, we'd be better for it, and the struggle to change the perception of many of our fellow southerners would be much easier. Unfortunately we can't swim in the deep end, and ignore those who cannot seem to mature beyond the wading pool. Unfortunate also that there are those who accept us when our votes count, but immediately thereafter cast the blanket that condemns us all by association with where we live, and the delusion that unsavory characteristics are the sole domain of the south. Actually, it's pretty goddamn pathetic that some people can look over their neighbors fence and point out a pile of shit, while standing in one of their own. Thanks.
quickesst

[Sugar Smack]

69. I'm not sure if I've ever seen that so elegantly put.

And in so few words. Thanks. :loveya:

[quickesst]

140. Thank you .....

.. for the kind words. They are appreciated. If you're ever down our way (south-central Arkansas) drop in and sit a spell. We'll leave the porch light on.:hi: Thanks.
quickesst

[Obamanaut]

108. Nicely said. nt

[Bryn]

152. Thank you!

:loveya:

[No Elephants]

158. Kindly cite the post numbers of the posts on this thread that condemn everyone who lives in the

South today.

[Kalyke]

57. Why would you do that to the 42 to 48 percent of us who didn't

vote for McCain (or Bush - or any other Republican)?

I don't want to move from my Southern state - it's pretty and temperate. I don't like freezing cold weather like they have in the North and I detest California.

[No Elephants]

163. There must be some state you could warm up to, so to speak. No Dem left behind!

[ccharles000]

3. I am glad my state (NC) does not observe Confederate History Month.

[No Elephants]

5. What do the Confederate whitewash and the Bush Legacy Project have in

common? Neocon revisionist history, dumb and/or cynical audiences, great evil, etc., etc., etc.

Secession was about slavery. All you need to do to confirm that is read the Articles of Secession themselves. That is the only "principle" or "states rights" mentioned--the right to own slaves.

I don't use this word often, but fuck the neocon revisionists and the lying, evil horse they rode in on.

[theHandpuppet]

225. How True! I wonder how many have actually read those Articles of Secession?

Will they read these at their Confederate history celebrations?

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

For those who aren't familiar with them, by all means don't miss the ones from Texas and South Carolina.

[denverbill]

6. Ahh. Nothing like venerating America-hating traitors to make one feel patriotic.

Are they going to have a Benedict Arnold Day and Tokyo Rose Day as well? Shouldn't Germans be able to celebrate their Nazi heritage too? After all, not all the things the Nazis did were bad.

It's odd that the same racist assholes that fly Confederate flags get pissed because Mexicans fly Mexican flags on Cinco de Mayo. Personally, I think Confederates need to assimilate with real Americans and choose which flag they are loyal to, Confederate or American.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. They should be able to do all those things.

Would you force those who fly other flags to assimilate as well? We do live in a free country after all. All of the things you listed are protected by our Constitution.

David

[No Elephants]

164. The Confederate flag, however, is the only flag of Americans who committed treason against

America. Therefore, suggesting assimilation is different from suggesting immigrants from other countries assimilate.

And the sentiments the poster expressed are also protected by the First Amendment, assuming the First Amendment has any application. However, the poster was not suggesting suing, fining or imprisoning anyone, so I don't see the state or federal action necessary to bring the First Amendment into it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

196. Are you saying that the Confederate flag isn't covered under the 1st Amendment?

[No Elephants]

214. How you come up with that from my post is a mystery.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

221. Asking a question for clarification, not uncommon here.

[F.C.James]

8. There is a lot of good about the South

I don't support the legitimacy nor the memory of the Confederate government -- whose primary purpose in seceding was to re-open the African slave trade.

But I do think that any history of the South and it's people is one well worth celebrating. The CSA was only ruled for four years during the period from about 1700 to 1865. There is much else to honor.

PS, a good book on this subject is "Slave Nation".

[No Elephants]

13. I am sure Germany and the German people have much to commend them

as well. However, I would have a hard time seeing the point of a posting that truism on a thread about the Holocaust.

As far as I have read, no one has suggesting that there is nothing at all to commend that South or its people.

[F.C.James]

28. We were discussing the CSA

As I indicated in my post, I am no great supporter of the men who were known as the Confederate government. I am a great admirer of the men who fought and died for them. Among those 600,000 men who lost their lives in the Civl War were several of my ancestors.

Should you like to discuss anything about the events leading up to that War, I'd be glad to join you.

However, I have no interest in the history of Germany.

[suzie]

32. I think that it is perhaps difficult to understand that many

of those who fought for the Confederacy were non-slave holding highland southerners who had little in common with the plantation society of the slave holding south.

In most southern states, there was a large group that didn't particularly favor secession, especially among the mountain regions. But even the small dirt farmers who held no slaves went off to fight when they felt their homeland was invaded.

An early settler in my county wrote that the first time he saw a black man was when he arrived at camp to fight for the Confederacy.

Perhaps we would do better as a nation to have examined the reasons that those southerners fought and the reasons that they honor their ancestors than simply condemning everyone in the south. Because understanding that people will fight when they feel invaded might have altered our attitude toward our adventures in Iraq and elsewhere.

However, maybe it's as important to look at the attitudes expressed in this thread--which seem to come up frequently on DU--and consider our current dilemma in Iraq. We're 150 years past the Civil War and many of those who've written here still hold punitive attitudes toward the south and southerners in general. What kind of a harmonious outcome can we expect among Iraqis? Afghanis?

[liberal1973]

34. Hmm...

I was born in the south, and I think these people are un-American.

During the civil war a lot of liberal southerns went and joined the United States army to fight against the Confederacy.

I certainly could see myself ,if I was around during that time, doing the same.

A number of years ago I read a article that was written after the civil war.

The article talked about some southerners being treated like shit and called unpatriotic before the civil war. Those southerners joined the United States army or just moved out.

Then after the defeat of the Confederacy those southerns would move back into their homes. But once word got out that some of those same reb soldiers would be coming back. The southerns ,who were treated like shit, got together and would lynch the reb soldiers.

To me that tells me that they must have went through hell.

[F.C.James]

39. The South was wrong to secede

I was born in the south, and I think these people are un-American.

During the civil war a lot of liberal southerns went and joined the United States army to fight against the Confederacy.

There must have been a shortage of "liberal" Southerners. Because very few people left. A few profiteers who had sold their property may have. But it was not a noticeable movement.

I certainly could see myself ,if I was around during that time, doing the same.

I can understand your feelings. But probably for different reasons. Had I been in Georgia in 1861, and knowing what I know now, I would have encouraged my friends not to secede -- but instead --to march on Montgomery and hang Jeff Davis and company for treason against the Plain Folk of the South.

The article talked about some southerners being treated like shit and called unpatriotic before the civil war. Those southerners joined the United States army or just moved out.

It's not unusual for traitors to be detested. Even those rare few who are in the right.

Then after the defeat of the Confederacy those southerns would move back into their homes. But once word got out that some of those same reb soldiers would be coming back. The southerns ,who were treated like shit, got together and would lynch the reb soldiers.

Where did you read that ? In a book of fairy tales ? In essence you are saying they were hanging local heroes, and got away with it. And it has escaped notice all these years. I've not heard of that.

[geek tragedy]

42. "It's not unusual for traitors to be detested."

Yet you wonder why the traitor Johnny Reb's are despised today.

[F.C.James]

62. They are not despised in their own land

And they should not be despised anywhere in the USA. Without the volunteers from the South, the USA would not have had enough manpower to have been able to launch a profitable war after 1865.

[No Elephants]

167. "In their own land?" Isn't the USA their own land? Volunteers from the South

after 1865 were Americans, not traitors. If Lincoln could forgive them for the sake of the United States, so can I. I have less than no problem celebrating their achievements and contributions after the Civil War was over. However, there were Jim Crow laws until the 1964, but that is hardly an achievement. And then there is the kind of re-casting of the Confederacy that this thread is about, also hardly an achievement.

[Critters2]

125. "It's not unusual for traitors to be detested."

Now you get why many of us detest the Confederacy and those who justify it.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[suzie]

87. People signed up to fight with their friends and family during the

Civil War, people from their communities.

Are you suggesting that someone from South Alabama, North Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, would have ridden off hundreds of miles to find a unit somewhere in the North that would welcome them and not believe that they were southern scum? And left their family to be burned out, starved, killed while they were gone?

Or, more likely, since the family would have needed a horse, walked hundreds and hundreds of miles to find a Northern unit to join up with people they didn't know.

Seems rather more like fantasy of 'what I would have done'.

[No Elephants]

157. They did not have to fight for the North, but they did not have to fight for the

principles of the treasonous, slavery wanting, Articles of Secession, either. And, if they did, they were traitors and supporters of slavery, wherever their families lived. No reason to call them anything else.

Plenty of people, North, South and West, were abolitionists, both during the Civil War and long before. Either people were on the correct side of the issues or they weren't.

As for people here and now, doesn't really matter what they/we would have done then and no one really knows anyway. What we do know, however, tells us that those who became traitors rather than limit the reach of slavery were on the wrong side of two huge issues.

[suzie]

185. "Either people were on the correct side of the issues or they weren't."

I'm glad to see that you take full responsibility for the existence of slavery. As non-southerners's ancestors were on the wrong side of this issue also, weren't they?

Because the United States accepted slavery as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Your screen name indicates that you are anti-Republican. But, how can that be? Abraham Lincoln was on the correct side of the issue--wasn't he a Republican? And the Democrats, like the original founding fathers, were on the wrong side.

The 1864 Democratic Platform began with the words:

Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

I assume that since you're here on Democratic Underground, you're a Democrat. And that you've petitioned your state party to remove the words "Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner" from the list of Democratic Party events--since they were both southerners and slaveholders. I assume you also believe that you've asked your Congressional Representatives to ask that Congress remove "George Washington" from Presidents' Day and have only Abraham Lincoln represented--because he was the only one on the correct side of the issue.

My personal impression from having read a little Civil War family history and visited historical sites in the South is that it gives one a real sense of the horror that was slavery. And a realization of how recent all those events were in human time. It's always made me a lot less tolerant of the negative comparisons between those of former slave ancestry and those who came with other immigrant groups.

Having faced that terrible history has also made me far less tolerant of Northerners who fail to recognize racism in themselves or own communities and prefer to continue bashing Southerners. Did the people on DU who so love to trash Southerners fail to notice the racial intolerance in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, during the presidential elections?

It also made me terribly angry at the Republican's Southern Strategy, which aimed at inciting racial intolerance in the South in a time during the 1960s when the region had a chance to get past the burden that slavery and the ensuing Jim Crow attitudes had laid upon it. It made me cautious of John McCain, who hails from the kind of Mississippi plantation owners that pushed secession and conscription of the non-slaveholding illiterate/near illiterate subsistence farmers to fight to protect the wealth of the planter class.

Knowing my family history has also made me more cautious about believing what the wealthy or politically powerful try to convince us is the correct thing to do. I believe that I stated originally that we might better understand what we've done in Iraq and the future of that country if we looked at the outcomes of our own Civil War.

But reading this thread and specifically your comments, I believe that the Civil War and its aftermath had led us as a nation down a path to be inclined to get involved in disastrous foreign wars. And that, once involved, we will do the most to increase that disaster exponentially.

Doesn't your attitude--they were traitors and fought on the wrong side--justify Abu Ghraib, Gitmo,the looting of Iraq, the destruction of the national infrastructure, the humiliation of the Iraqi military, etc., etc.? After all, the Iraqis were all on the side of Saddam Hussein, and as such, they were supporters of genocide. Thus, they deserved to be orphaned, tortured, moved out of their neighborhoods, called 'pussies' by American military personnel.

[No Elephants]

186. Sorry, but your post is full of false dichotomies and other major flaws. For instance,

not petitioning my government to stop celebrating the birth of the first President of the United States is not remotely comparable to committing treason over extending slavery to the territories.

Another example: The Iraqis, not being citizens of the United States of America cannot possibly be traitors to the United States of America. They can be enemies of the U.S., but not treasonous. However, my prior post said nothing about enemies of the U.S. in general, only traitors. (And, according to the U.S. Iraq is not even our enemy, but that is beside the point since I never posted about enemies in general.)

The other part of my statement was not about simply fighting against the U.S., but about being on the wrong side of moral issues. Since I never said that the Iraqis were on the wrong side of any moral issue, your assumptions on that account are out in left field. The other conclusions to which you jump are similarly way off.

And when you start making assumptions about screen names, then drawing further conclusions about me on the basis of your own assumptions about my screen name, that is really going some.

I also find it interesting that you single out my posts on this thread in particular when there are people who have posted "the South then and now and everyone in it suck" although not in those exact words. I have not posted anything remotely comparable to that. I've posted that secession was treason and it was and that slavery was immoral and it was. And also that I don't care to celebrate either secession or slavery.

But, you are certainly entitled to think mine are the worst posts on this thread, no matter what my posts and other posts actually say.

[Thothmes]

135. Please cite a source for your contention

that "a lot of liberal southerns went and oied the United States army"

[F.C.James]

35. Hatred of the South is hard for sane people to understand

of those who fought for the Confederacy were non-slave holding highland southerners who had little in common with the plantation society of the slave holding south.

The South was controlled -- politically -- by less than 2% of the of the families. Those were the ones who owned 50 or more slaves.

Perhaps we would do better as a nation to have examined the reasons that those southerners fought and the reasons that they honor their ancestors than simply condemning everyone in the south. Because understanding that people will fight when they feel invaded might have altered our attitude toward our adventures in Iraq and elsewhere.

So true. It was not to protect slavery that inspired most (and I emphasis "most") Southern men to take up arms against the USA. It was the invasion of the South by the Union army. Most men will defend their homeland.

I recently somewhere that the Historical Society of Georgia - back in the 1970s -- looked into the probability that the Planters committed voting fraud in order to choose secessionist candidates to send to the secession convention in 1861. The results were never proven, but I think it was obvious. I checked and found that according to official figures, a lot more voters (white men age 21 and over who owned land) voted in the presidential election in November than voted in the election to the Secession Convention. Those numbers in itself is pretty odd.

However, maybe it's as important to look at the attitudes expressed in this thread--which seem to come up frequently on DU--and consider our current dilemma in Iraq. We're 150 years past the Civil War and many of those who've written here still hold punitive attitudes toward the south and southerners in general. What kind of a harmonious outcome can we expect among Iraqis? Afghanis?

I see a number of posters who imply there is a similarity between the ppeople of the South and Fascist Germany. I'd suggest a closer similarity would be between the Southern people during Reconstruction and those in modern Palestine

[EFerrari]

40. Of course wars are always sold to those who actually fight them

as defense of their homes.

[F.C.James]

76. It's not hard to sell ...

... when the men can look out the back door and see hordes of armed Republicans marching across the Potomac. Intent on murder, rape and pillage. With Honest Abe cheering the on.

But, that was a long time ago. Let us forget and forgive. It worked out for the good. In spite of all efforts to the contrary.

[geek tragedy]

88. The War of Northern Aggression.

Also, the day the North took the Negroes away from us.

[No Elephants]

166. How about "the day the government of the United States refused to extend slavery to the

new territories and put down a treasonous rebellion, at great cost to life and property of both the traitors and the government?" Not as catchy, but a lot more accurate.

[Occam Bandage]

105. "Intent on murder, rape and pillage"

Nothing remotely approaching that occurred before the late stages of the Vicksburg campaign--and nearly all the cases of mass murder and rape were performed by boys in butternut under Morgan and Forrest. (And calling it a war of Northern aggression is absolutely absurd, given that the Confederates started the war with secession, and that they fired the first shot at Ft. Sumter.)

[EFerrari]

112. How does someone in Georgia see someone crossing the Potomac?

Maybe I'm worse at geography than I thought. It's possible!

[Occam Bandage]

113. It's not Geography, it's Palinography.

[No Elephants]

168. Why, from their window, of course. Or does that work only in Alaska?

[Critters2]

126. Now you have a sense of how Africans felt when they were captured

and taken to that part of the world you so love.

Talk about rationalizations. Interesting how you behave as if there were nothng but home-loving white people in the South at the time. All those slaves just seem not on your radar screen.

[comtec]

233. Hmm... you will hate this then

Whites rarely if ever entered Africa to capture slaves.
there was literally no need.
the African warlords did that for them.
All the Euros had to do was sail their ships to the port, pay "little king george" and leave with a hold full of slaves.

These people were villagers of villages that were destroyed by armies.
if they were not sold to the euros they had two options:

Be slaves to the africans
be dead

Slavery was a business transaction.
I know it's popular to imagine these great slave hunts by white Europeans, but it was rare if it ever happened.

[geek tragedy]

41. So, Southerners were not loyal Americans?

Traitors or white supremacists, they deserved what they got either way.

[Occam Bandage]

106. ...

"I'd suggest a closer similarity would be between the Southern people during Reconstruction and those in modern Palestine."

I'd suggest a closer similarity still would be between the Southern people during Reconstruction and the Occupation of Japan.

[No Elephants]

169. Some former slaves held offices for a couple of years. Oh, the

Humanity!

In the South, during Reconstruction, you had newly freed slaves, not exactly a powerful or wealthy group, whites who had held all the power since Colonial days, violent white supremacists, the state goverment, which supported and protected white supremacists. local governments that did the same and the federal government. Guess who controlled daily life. And then, there were Jim Crow laws, officially until 1964 and unofficially after that.

Nothing like Palestine from 1948 to 2009 whatever. Not even like the occupation of Japan. I don't think there is any situation really comparable.

[babythunder]

141. My entire family (which is African American) is from Louisana and Texas

many still live in the South but starting with my parents generation most of them starting heading up North or to the West. But for the life of me I cannot understand the South's oppression with re-living the Civil War. This is also why many people are distrustful of the South and why they also may not see some Southerners as the brightest group of people.


Who celebrates defeat?

[badgervan]

143. NO Revisionism, Please

A couple of posters have stated that the south had to fight because of "northern invasion". Bullfeathers.... you conveniently forget Fort Sumter? When you cut through all the excuses now used by southerners to legitimize seccession, you are left with one big, fat fact: the Civil War was fought because the south wanted to expand slavery in the western territories as they became states, and the north wanted to limit slavery to the states where it already existed. This is fact, not revisionism.

[No Elephants]

161. The government of the United States did not want to extend slavery. The South rebelled against the

U.S. not the north.

[MajorChode]

206. There was much more to the war than slavery

Certainly slavery was the single biggest cause for the simple reason that it served to divide the states politically. For that reason alone, it means the War Between the States was indeed fought directly because of slavery. However it's not just that simple. The economy of the south at the time was based on slavery. Many in the south saw the actions of the north as an attempt to undermine the economy of the south, and essentially that's what it was even though it wasn't for those reasons. Since the north was growing much faster than the south, this was a big issue.

Fort Sumter is not so cut and dried either. The legal case for secession was by no means absolute either way. One could certainly argue that states did have a right to secede at the time and if so, those forts held by the north did indeed reside on sovereign territory which the north had no legal claim to occupy. Given those assumptions, the attack on Fort Sumter would not be an act of aggression on behalf of the Confederacy, but rather a legitimate use of force to reclaim rightful property. The north had already declared it's intention of resupplying the fort by force. Now certainly one could argue the other way as well, and there's good points either way, but I don't think anyone can definitely say one way or the other. As such you can neither definitely say that the attack on Fort Sumter was an invasion by the south.

[badgervan]

227. You ....

... are one of the revisionists. Ain't gonna hold water. I can definitely say that the attack on Fort Sumter was an attack by the South on the North, the hotheads "leading" the South knowing exactly the consequences. You just keep telling yourself "there's good points either way". You are wrong, and too emblematic of those who try and distort and muddy the objective facts of history. bush, cheney and crew are attempting the same thing right now... bend and muddy the facts so as to confuse people of what actually happened, and why.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalyke]

58. Wow - don't know much about history, do you?

Hillbillies fought for the North, you ignorant revisionist. And, fwiw, many Pennsylvanians fought for the South.

Hillbillies were poor and nearly as mistreated by the elite as the slaves. They were also God-fearing and were taught in their country churches that slavery was wrong.

I wish people on this board would fucking pick up a detailed history book written by an authority on the subject of the Civil War before spouting their uniformed mouths off (and that goes for about half the posters on this thread - not just you).

[Critters2]

127. Yep. There's a reason West Virginia became its own state. nt

[October]

49. "...when their homeland was invaded..."

That's an interesting phrase you keep using.

"...went off to fight when their homeland was invaded." Homeland? Invaded? Went off?

Plenty of northerners died, too. So, if they died north of the Mason-Dixon Line, am I supposed to call the southerners "invaders"? I guess I just never grew up with such contrary thinking about southerners/northerners.

Northerners lost their ancestors, too, but we don't have a national holiday celebrating those divisive times, or honoring only northern traditions.

One large farm near Gettysburg bears my family's name. It's sacred ground, now, a final resting place for Americans -- no delineation of north nor south needed.

[Aristus]

65. The old argument that most of the Confederate soldiers were not slave owners is true.

But, unfortunately irrelevant. In their own way, the non-slave owning small holding farmers were fighting to preserve slavery just as passionately as the landed idle rich. For this reason: as long as slavery existed, the poor white trash who did the bulk of the fighting would not be on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder. There would always be an underclass of people that they could lord it over and feel superior too. Why do you think they instituted Jim Crow and fought against the Civil Rights movement so hard?

[comrade snarky]

71. I agree

Many people in the South fought to preserve their place in the social order.

Not quite the noble "protecting their homeland" crap some in this thread would have us believe.

[treestar]

188. Great sum up

They were fighting to keep things the way they were, and so had a stake in it.

They also could have seen themselves as potential slave owners (as today they see themselves as potentially rich).

[No Elephants]

165. Please see Post 158. Or are you implying that everyone in the South now

want to celebrate the Confederacy?

As far as the "north" being punitive, this was seceeding states versus the duly constituted government of the United States, not north v. south--and we, as a nation, are way beyond the northeast vs. the southeast. Those on this thread who oppose celebrating the Confederacy are not necessarily from the Northeast.

As far as "punitive," what is punitive about not wanting to celebrate the Confederacy? And, I have heard a lot of nasty things about the north and northerners coming from the today's southerner, so your perspective seems to come from only one direction.

[comtec]

234. Of course the majority of southerners want to celebrate the confederacy

or we'd have even harder right whack jobs in congress.
but the thing is, they are the loudest.
They may not be the majority - and god I hope they're a shrinking minority - but they are very loud.
and human nature is to pay attention to the loud ones.

The fact that the battle flag (which is NOT the confederate flag) and the actual confed flag, are flow, a lot, on a LOT of buildings, public and private in the south, bumper stickers, et all.

While the logical side of the brain accepts that these are minority, they are aberrations that stick out when one visits the south.

and the sheer number of bible thumpers also does NOT help the reputation of the south-eastern states either.

I'm sympathetic, I really am. As an american here in Europe I have to answer for everything the US does.
That includes all the bad tv and movies, and music, everything.... I tend to stay home a lot LOL.

So yes, I do understand being painted with a broad brush, but the reason FOR being painted, is also pretty evident as well.
it's hard to refute the fine details, when the big-picture is pretty bad.

[Donnachaidh]

83. the notion of stating the CSA only ruled for 4 years is disingenuous at best

What -- the feelings and beliefs of the South that brought on the war and the CSA just got yanked out of some southerner's rear end over night? DECADES of slavery HAPPENED -- helped along by white slave owners and their traders that brought in thousands of slave over those decades.

Please. Don't expect the rest of the country to play the same 3 monkey *see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil* game the South has been playing in regards to their *heritage*. That *flag* should be hung on a wall next to the swastika -- the two are brothers in arms.

[Critters2]

124. I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy,

and though my family left Germany over a century before, I probably have blood ties to Nazis as well. I'm proud of neither of these legacies.

[No Elephants]

170. And no one should judge you by your ancestry, either for good or for evil. You

should be judged only by your own words, acts and omissions.

By the same token, you should feel no personal shame (or pride) for actions taken by anyone but you.

[No Elephants]

156. "We" were discussing the desire to share a Confederate holiday. I made an analogy. I did not

"discuss" the history of Germany or my post would have read a lot differently.

As far as your ancestors dying in the Civil War, not sure what that has to do with the price of tea. Many of us, including President Obama, have ancestors who died in that war, and/or many other wars, sometimes fighting on the wrong side. And?

Fighting for the principles of the Articles of Secession is not, IMO, especially honorable, but I would not hold it against anyone's descendants. However, I don't honor or dishonor anyone because of what their ancestors said or did, only their own words, actions and inactions.

[Lorien]

27. ANY history is worth celebrating?

Recognizing, maybe-"celebrating" though, gotta disagree there. There are some histories; like the confederacy's desire to continue to enslave, rape, and murder an entire race of people with impunity- that does NOT deserve to be "celebrated". Can you imagine Germany "celebrating" Nazi day?

[F.C.James]

30. Let's think about that ....

You say

confederacy's desire to continue to enslave, rape, and murder an entire race of people

Don't you think that's a bit overdone ? "Enslave" ? Yes. That was what they wanted to do. And if the truth is known, they wanted to open the African slave trade so they could enslave even more people. But Rape" ? I seriously doubt that. Or "murder" ? There would be no profit in that. And would defeat the whole purpose of slavery.

Can you imagine Germany "celebrating" Nazi day?

I seem to have accidently fallen into a german cultural group. I'm really not interested in your social history.

[comrade snarky]

54. Oh, well if people were kept as property

For economic reasons it's no so bad.

This is the same argument used in the South before the war. They decried the wage slaves of the North who could be tossed out at a moments notice to starve in the streets. Slavery was so much better because the slave owners had a responsibility and an economic necessity to keep their property in good working condition their whole lives.

It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. The ability to own a person as chattel included the right to murder and rape human beings. At will. For any reason. Or do you think slave owners were punished for what they did? I mean beyond the apparent foolishness of damaging property they could replace with another rape.

Also you need to deal with the fact that had the CSA survived the civil war it would have been a natural ally to the Nazis. Or is that a little too devastating to your fantasies.

[F.C.James]

63. The Fascist would have hated the CSA

Also you need to deal with the fact that had the CSA survived the civil war it would have been a natural ally to the Nazis. Or is that a little too devastating to your fantasies.

Actually the CSA in 1941, would have been what the German Fascists hated most. The Fascist were not a friend of agriculture. They were a friend of Big Business. Just like the Republicans were when they invaded the South in 1861.

I detest slavery as much as you do. But let us try and be fair in our arguments about the South. For instance, I will say the people who gave us Secession were the moral equivalent of the present crop of Wall Street bankers and derivative traders that have almost destroyed our present economy.

[comrade snarky]

66. Way to ignore the main point of what I posted

Good going, pick the argument you think you can win.
So the Nazis wouldn't have liked the CSA because it was an agrarian economy? Don't strain yourself with that reach, you could do yourself damage.

"But let us try and be fair in our arguments about the South. For instance, I will say the people who gave us Secession were the moral equivalent of the present crop of Wall Street bankers and derivative traders"

What! People who advocated for a war to hold other humans as property that took over 200,000 lives in battle and countless more through disease and injuries are the equivalent of the wall street bankers? Really? As much as I despise the greedy wall street idiots I would welcome one into my home before a son of a bitch like any confederate leader.

Your minimizing of the monstrous acts perpetrated by these traitors is disgusting. You sicken me and I am from the South.

Edited to add:
And the South fired first jackass so lets drop the North invasion, war of Northern aggression shit. The Confederacy was invaded because they bet everything that had on a traitorous act and lost. Badly. Something that was better in the long run for the USA, the South and the world.

The more I look at what you have written the more I see a confederate apologist trying to moderate his language and spread that particular brand of revisionist history. I'm surprised I haven't seen you call yourself Southron yet, that's usually an identifier for your ilk.
You may not find to fertile a ground around here. I can suggest a few other websites that may be more receptive.

[F.C.James]

67. Take a Tum and settle down

No offense intended. My feeling is that their big sin was secession and wanting to maintain the status quo of the Founders. ie, slavery. Would you share a cup of coffee with George Washington ?

The sins of slavery are too numerous for a 21st Century mind to comprehend. imo. I cannot imagine how anybody -- including some of my ancestors -- could have participated in such a monstrous practice.

And besides being inhuman, it was stupid and uneconomical. Which is what the Planters found out after the Civil War when they switched from slavery over to the more economical institution of peonage. Or as they called it -- share cropping.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[F.C.James]

72. Read "Slave Nation"

And become educated on this subject. You may even enjoy it.

[comrade snarky]

73. Wasnt necessary to see through you

Nor germain to the point of discussing the CSA and your apology for them is it?

But I'm sure you'd love to drag this discussion into a side track. A common tactic used by civil war revisionists.

[F.C.James]

79. Come on, Comrade

Don't pretend to be obtuse. I'm not a CW revisionist. Actually I have no interest in the CW. And when it comes to slavery and the leaders of the CSA, I'm on your side.

I am interested only in the culture of my ancestors in Ante-Bellum South.

I have enjoyed your posts and I will now take my leave for today.

[comrade snarky]

89. Feel free to go away mad

So long as you go away. Not that I think you will last around here anyway.

I knew many who were "interested only in the culture of my ancestors in Ante-Bellum South". Many of those flew confederate flags. Of course since I'm a white guy it never took them long to get to the point of what they liked about the Ante-Bellum South. Never met one in almost 20 years who didn't fit that mold.

You remind me of them, your protestations to the contrary. I know it's against the forum rules to call another poster a liar, so I'll just stop here.

I think it's clear to anyone reading this thread.

[F.C.James]

153. I wasn't going to ask, but ...

Not that I think you will last around here anyway

What does one have to do (or say) to insure a long and happy life on this forum ?
Or should I ask -- what must I avoid doing or saying ?

[Marr]

119. edit

oops

[comrade snarky]

120. What, WHAT!

Now it's not just revisionist history, it's revisionist posting!

Just kidding :P :hi:

[Marr]

129. Haha, no, no-

I was taken aback by the other poster's "Comrade" reference towards you, and then I noticed it was in your screen name. Haha, duh.

[comrade snarky]

131. Ha! Can't damn him for that one

Don't really need to when he just keeps handing out rocks to throw back at him.

Thanks though :toast:

[No Elephants]

173. No, the Founders fought over slavery, too. The slave owners representing the Southern

states at functions like the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention obviously wanted slavery. Others fought hard against it. However, the Southerners threatened to drop out then, too, just as they did in the Civil War. So, slavery was not so much the intent of the Founders as it was the intent of the slave owners who represented the Southern States in debating and drafting of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

I'd have a cup of coffee with Washington. And even JFK spoke wistfully of Jefferson. However, I would not let either of them off the hook about their actions relative to slavery, especially since both knew it was evil.

[suzie]

187. Sorry, no, you can't excuse the rest of the Founding Fathers.

They wanted the support of the slaveholding states, without which the Revolution might not have succeeded. So, they accepted slavery in the Constitution.

That's like saying that because you only drove the getaway car, you are not complicit in the murder of the bank teller.

Adams, Franklin were just as complicit as Jefferson, Washington, the rest of the southerners. Like the getaway car driver, they signed off on the whole adventure.

[No Elephants]

192. Kindly point out where I excused anyone for anything. The poster to whom I was

responding claimed that the Founders wanted America to be a slave nation, so that maintaining that a hundred laters was only maintaining the status quo of the Founders. However, it is undeniable that some very much opposed slavery. (For that matter, some of the Southern slave owners, like Washington and Jefferson, opposed slavery as an institution. They just loved them some slave labor to pay their bills. Greed above humanity, principle, everything.) True, the Founders who fought hard against making America a slave nation ultimately caved to the Southern slave owners. But all the statements in this paragraph are true.

Whether you admit it or not, there is a difference between those who threatened to walk out unless slavery became the law of the land and those who fought hard against the first group. That does not excuse caving in to the first group. but, again, I never excused the caving in.

And, while I still won't excuse it, there was "a bit" of a compulsion at the time to get the United States of America going. A lot of lives were in danger and a lot was at stake, to put it mildly.

[suzie]

194. Sorry, no.

You will allow no excuse to the southerners who fought for the Confederacy--yet, you're still excusing the Founding Fathers, but minimizing it by saying "a bit of compulsion".

On the one hand, when faced with conscription and danger to your family and loss of your land--that's unforgivable if you were a Southern non-slaveholder.

But, danger to lives is different if you were a Founding Father. Then, enshrining slavery as part of the law of the land is okay.

Sorry, driving the getaway car will still get you charged with murder even if you say you didn't think they'd kill the bank teller--although they did have guns.

[No Elephants]

195. Again, I never excused anyone. Pointing out facts that surrounded an action is not

the same as excusing it. If you cannot distinguish between a statement of accurate facts and an exoneration, that is your error and apparently one from which you do not care to be dissuaded.

[suzie]

205. The Founding Fathers had a choice to found a new nation

without the slave holding states or to remain a part of Great Britain. They did not have to make that compromise.

Slavery might have ended far earlier in North America had the slave holding states remained a part of Great Britain, either with or without the Northern colonies. Great Britain, I believe ended slavery rather earlier than the United States.

[No Elephants]

210. No kidding. Everyone had a choice about slavery, except the slaves had fewer choices about it than

the rest of the population. However, they could have committed suicide rather than be slaves, for example. (I'm surprised none of the Confederacy defenders has argued that yet.)

We all have and make choices. Some are worse than others.

I don't feel any more responsible for, or proud of, John Adams. I don't feel responsible for, or proud of, Robert E. Lee, either. As a result, I don't personally feel shame or pride about either of them. Nor do I try to defend or excuse either of them.

I don't celebrate a holiday month to commemorate Adams's caving int to the Southern slave owners on the issue of slavery. I am also not suggesting that the Massachusetts State House fly a flag representing that event.

On the other hand, I recognize that all things are not of equal weight. I also don't make up stories about what would have happened if Adams had made a different choice. If I were to do so, I would recognize that things, as far as slavery on this continent, could have been either much better or things could have been much, much worse. Anything else would be very dishonest.

Did you have a point about the thread topic that you wanted to make, though?

[geek tragedy]

37. Nothing worth celebrating. They've been the most

backwards, hateful part of the country since the founding.

[F.C.James]

50. Strange you should feel that way

It's been pointed out .. by people smarter than me ... that although the South lost the War, they won the peace. From about 1876 to 1964 the demands of the South were obeyed by the Federal government. Why ? Because the South controlled the government in that period.

[rvablue]

81. WTF? Live in delusion much?

Really, the demands of "the south" were obeyed by the Federal government, huh?

Guess you missed out on basic history during high school, like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act and freedom marches and forced integration of schools...all because racist southerners were clinging for dear life on to the notion of segregating and denying rights to people based on the color of their skin.

Now, go read a book and enlighten yourself. Because, first, you're factually wrong, and second when you say people "smarter than you" have said this, you need some serious work on figuring out who is smart and who is not.

[suzie]

97. Last time I read a history book, the Voting Rights Acts, the

Civil Rights Act were passed after 1964.

And also the last time I read a history book, the President who managed to push that Act through and get it signed was a Southerner.

[No Elephants]

175. True. Without taking anything away from LBJ, no one could have gotten the Civil Rights

Act passed in 1964, though, if it had not been for the efforts of JFK and RFK during JFK's administration, followed, above all, by JFK's assassination.

It was the "He would have wanted this" argument that got the bill passed, no thanks to the legislators from the Southern states, most or all of whom were Democrats or Dixiecrats. Democrats from other states, however, voted for it overwhelmingly. wiki has the breakdown by region.

It's very telling in many ways--South vs. the rest of the country, Democrats, other than Democrats from the South vs. Republicans from all parts of the country, etc.

Footnote: A Southerner added women to the bill. There is a debate over whether he did that thinking his amendment would tank the bill or whether he was genuinely for women's rights.

[suzie]

209. According to what I'd read,

and what I remembered at the time, the Civil Rights Act was stalled under JFK and might have remained so. Don't get me wrong, I think JFK was a war hero and an impressive guy.

And that Lyndon Johnson was a weird person and an absolute megalomaniac. But the Kennedy's were never hotshots about legislation, as I recall, and LBJ was one of the all time great masters of Congressional politics.

Both JFK and LBJ were politicians who knew that the time had come to do something in the Civil Rights area or there would be more serious national problems. And they both probably wanted the name recognition that would come from passing it--not to mention that it would give their party a new constituency.

In the back of my mind, I've always seriously wondered if JFK would have left the stalled Civil Rights legislation as he did the Cubans, stranded on the beach. Perhaps it's just been my experience in politics that when you're dealing with legislation that affects average people, you're better off with a politician who's been a poor boy and taught poor children.

LBJ pulled out all the stops and undoubtedly called in the favors of a political lifetime to pass the Civil Rights Act and had to be creative to get the legislation out of committee. I think it took a lot more than just leaning on JFK's memory and that LBJ does deserve the credit.

[No Elephants]

213. Without the groundwork laid by the Kennedys and without the assassination, the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 would never have happened. However, some civil rights legislation had passed under JFK, although not as comprehensive as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And, of course, RFK's enforcement actions were significant as well. Saying that the legislation would not have passed but for the assassination does not take credit from LBJ. I expressly said that I was not doing that and I did not do it. LBJ was brilliant at getting what he wanted, which is why he was a great Speaker. A lesser person would not have seized the moment or known how to use it or succeeded in using it. Things are not either/or. Neither are my posts. You seem to read into them the direct opposite of what they say, though.

[suzie]

219. Lyndon Johnson was Senate Majority Leader.

Please indicate which "...civil rights legislation had passed under JFK".

There had been a weak civil rights act passed in 1957. JFK had been instrumental in weakening it. I believe that Lyndon Johnson voted for it.

Without the assassination, you are probably correct that the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. It is unlikely that JFK would have expended the political capital necessary to get the legislation through the Congress.

[No Elephants]

235. Unlikely? Did you just make that up?

[Uncle Joe]

102. All of those things you listed took place in the 1950s and 1960s

between the end of the Civil War and that time, there was one, maybe two Presidents which could be considered from Southern States, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. Jim Crow was a collusion between the North and the South, until almost 100 years after the Civil War.

"Guess you missed out on basic history during high school, like the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act and freedom marches and forced integration of schools...all because racist southerners were clinging for dear life on to the notion of segregating and denying rights to people based on the color of their skin."

[No Elephants]

171. Not so much a collusion. The SCOTUS had held that "separate but equal"

did not violate the COTUS. Therefore, I don't know what the Unites Government could have done about Jim Crow until the SCOTUS reversed itself, which did not happen until 1954. And that was only because "separate but equal" was a lie. Things for "colored" were never equal to things for whites.

[geek tragedy]

90. Yes, and we had to send troops in to force the South to become

part of the civilized world during the 1950's and 60's.

So, that makes two times the South had to be invaded because of its virulent racism.

[Marr]

122. That doesn't make any sense.

I assume you're using 1964 as the end marker due to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. If we accept the idea that the south got it's way (in southern matters) with the federal government up *until* the passage of the Civil Rights Act... how does vindicate the south?

I mean- you were responding to a poster who said the south was the most backward part of the country. If it's true that the south was allowed to have it's own way in the federal government up until '64, that seems to reinforce the claim of the poster you were responding to.

[badgervan]

181. They Still Do...

... sad to say. And I include most Soutern Dems... which is sadder to say. The stubborn refusal to allow progress by the South in general has always mystified and disappointed me. To consistently vote against that which would help you is a huge reason why I just can't wrap my brain around the Southern reasoning process come voting day. I see them as sort of an enemy of progress... just because they can be. Revenge?

[bvar22]

86. Hi.

Living in the deep South and Loving it.


We don't own any slaves, or fly the confederate flag.....really.

Doing our part to Turn the South Blue.



Please don't come here.
We already have enough bigots.

BTW: Which state holds the record for the most black men lynched on a single day?

[geek tragedy]

92. My guess would be Indiana.

I wish you luck in turning the deep South blue.

[suzie]

99. It would help if all the Republicans from the North,

who will never, ever vote for a Democrat, went home.

It's a little tiring listening to them say the most incredibly racist things and then acting as if they're better than everyone else around because they're not Southern.

[comrade snarky]

103. I had to work with one of those for a few weeks

Until he got his ass fired.
A Long Islander who moved to northern Atlanta when things got, and I quote, "a little to dark in the neighborhood". Boy did he ever look down on Southern Democrats. They were almost as bad as the black people to him.

[bvar22]

147. The answer is New York.

You don't hear about this one too much.

New York City, 1863
Estimates range from between 200 to 500+ Black Men, women and children were killed.
Black Men were hung from lamp posts.


Thanks for wishing us luck, but we don't need it.
Its the journey that counts,
and our little area is already Bluer since we got here in 2006.

[comrade snarky]

96. Good for you!

Hi Bvar22
Just because of my discussion with the poster who I shall not name above I want to tell you there are aspects of the South I love. The hospitality is real, heck to this day, after 20 years in California I still cant go to someone else's house without bringing a dish. It just feels wrong. I also cant have someone over without offering coffee or wine since this is CA. :D

It's the part of me raised by my grandmother and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

[No Elephants]

176. Believe it or not, that is very Mediterranean, too. And if someone brought a dish

to my family, whatever it came in got washed immediately and returned with something in it, perhaps some home made pastries or cookies.

When I bring someone a dish, weeks later, I'm still hoping to get my platter or container back. When I mentioned this to my cousin, she told me that she buys plates and plastic containers at flea markets and yard sales for a buck or so, just to give food to her neighbors. That way, she doesn't care if she ever gets it back.

I am just not as good a person as she is. I am not going to go to yard sales just for the privilege of bringing someone else home made food or desserts!

[suzie]

100. How about this one?

Where were slaves not set free by the Emancipation Proclamation?

[misanthrope]

137. "Only ruled for four years?" By law, yes. By mentality, no.**nm

**

[boomerbust]

9. ok

[Ian David]

10. They lost. They should get the fuck over it.

http://www.cafepress.com/southdiversity

[billyoc]

11. Excellent Idea. I think we should have history month for similar groups, like the Viet Cong.

Well, the Viet Cong WON, so that might not be necessary. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

16. Was the Viet Cong fighting for the right to

buy and sell folks and leave folks to their children in their wills? (No cute answers, please. I am talking literally.)

[No Elephants]

12. Looking to share their neo love of the Confedrate flag

[SteelPenguin]

15. Disgusting Holiday

Celebrating traitors to our nation... It disgusts me honestly. I think too many people are too far removed from it now for them to truely understand what it is they are celebrating, and those that are have open disgust for their own country, yet claim to be it's staunchest patriots. Hypocrites, liars, racists, and their ilk.

What does it tell you that 2 of the states celebrate Confederate Memorial Day on Martin Luther King Jr. Day? Screw that uppity black guy, lets celebrate rebellion against our nation for the purposes of keeping the slaves in their place on that same day. You stay classy Texas and Arkansas.

The flag is an anti-american symbol, and anyone who celebrates it is unamerican, in my opinion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. Confederate History Month?

Good grief.

[wilt the stilt]

18. Southern values- The south I know

I live in the south and this is the south I know:
lies to your face
pretends to be religious
phony as a three dollar bill
nice to your face and disparaging behind your back
untrustworthy

As I tell my kids - get out as soon as you finish college- If I could afford it I would send them away.

We will be backing up the moving van as soon as they graduate.

My coach's son cut him right after he promised me that there would always be a place for him on the team and my son raised 4 figures for the team including a very large amount one week before tryouts. I raised 5 figures for the team.

ah! southern values at their best.

[Kalyke]

60. Good - more jobs for my kids.

I love the South.

There are some of its people I don't like, but most are not in any way the way you describe. Maybe they think you're a lying phony. :shrug:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

74. I'll second some of what he said.

I've lived in northern, southern and mid-Atlantic regions. Never have I experienced the "nice-as-pie to your face/stabbing you in the back" phenomenon the way I have in the south. I see it in "native" neighbors and co-workers, to the point that I offer very little information about anything. Dealing with Miss Daisy can be a PITA.

Another thing that was a real eye-opener is how manipulative many of the women are. I've spoken to other women about this and we've been told -- by southern women -- that they're taught that it's impolite to ask for something directly, so they're sneaky and manipulative about getting what they want. Not all, obviously, but some.

Another thing I found "interesting" was dealing with southern men in a professional setting. I've gotten in to it with contractors, and phew, they do not like when a woman challenges them. The first thing they ask is "where's your husband?" Even my (former) optometrist and I sort of got in to it. He had that creepy blessed look -- to the point of me wanting to bolt from the chair, but I stuck it out. He was pushing tinted contact lenses that I did not want and was quite displeased when I refused the lenses. I've never experienced anything like that in a medical setting. I've had much better luck with minority-owned businesses down here -- very accommodating and no bullshit.

One thing I hear over and over from people is that in the north, folks are direct and you know exactly where you stand. That may turn some people off, but who the hell has the time or energy for sneaky and manipulative?

And never in the north have I seen the equivalent of a "Shoot a Yankee for Jesus" t-shirt or "Ynke8ter" bumper sticker. Many have a royal chip on their shoulder.

There are many charming things about the south and I'll repeat that my observations pertain to some not all, but it's definitely "different" down here.

[suzie]

148. I have also lived in northern, southern and mid-Atlantic regions.

And have worked retail in the South, where I've been treated abysmally by Northerners such as yourself, who acted as if I didn't have the sense to pour water out of a boot. Did I mention that I have an advanced degree and a long professional history?

I haven't found Southern women to be any more manipulative than any other women. Nor have I experienced the problems dealing with contractors, repair people, etc., that you describe. Perhaps it's your attitude that puts people off?

And if being direct means that when people from the North or Mid-Atlantic Region hear your southern accent and automatically lower your I.Q. by 20 points, and admit to you that they do it, why I guess some might consider that directness an asset. I didn't.

My spouse is a professional guy, raised in the South, schooled in the South, worked in the South. I've lived a whole variety of places and I've never met anyone in the North, West, or mid-Atlantic regions who comes close to being as supportive of women as he is. And who spent a long career in public service helping women get ahead. I have a whole array of Southern male friends who are the same--and I'm also friends with their very strong, non-manipulative, wives.

I never experienced that kind of support in the North or the Mid-Atlantic Region when I was a young career woman--in fact, just the opposite.

But since DU is about progressive Democrats, I have to tell you that going to a meeting and telling southerners that they are awful, that nothing is as good as back home in the North, that you just can't believe how corrupt, ignorant and stupid they are and "Oh BTW, you guys need to listen to us and go out and do what we say and then we'll get some Democrats elected here"--is not a great strategy.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

193. You’re quick to dismiss my observations.

First, I stated that the south does have its charms. Second, I said my observations pertain to some, not all.

My "attitude" is just fine. I moved down here eager to embrace my new home state. I work, I pay taxes, I own a home, I renovated said home, I sought out locally-owned businesses, I volunteered, I looked to expand my social horizons. I’ve made a number of close friends, interestingly, from points north and west. After battling shoddy workmanship from “locals,” I found a reliable handyman from NY and a plumber from NJ. Hell, even the tile guy is from TX. (I'll give credit where credit is due: a local mechanic was a great find.) I was the darling of the neighborhood because of the upgrades I made to my home and yard; that is, until the Obama sticker went up on my vehicle. Suddenly, Miss Daisy couldn’t even be bothered to wave to me.

Professionally, my experience has been the opposite. I’m lucky to work in an environment where most everyone is from somewhere else, but any “office drama” I’ve encountered is from the women I described above. Fortunately, I’ve learned how to deal with them, but am looking forward to transferring out.

Personally, I do not conduct myself in the manner you describe in your last paragraph, nor do I know anyone who does. We have manners up north, too. And we even know to bring a dish and not wear white after Labor Day. And your "lowering of IQ" reference is not how I define “direct,” but nice spinning on that one.

[suzie]

207. You're equally quick to dismiss my observations as well.

You may wish to deny that any Northerners conduct themselves as I mentioned, but I listened to 25 minutes of folks from Northern states relating exactly the kinds of statements from my last paragraph at a county Democratic meeting around Inauguration Day. I'm from elsewhere in the South, but the gentleman sitting next to me, a really good Democrat who's lived all his life in this southern county, was quite offended.

My experience is simply different than yours. I live in about the most conservative community there is. We had Obama signs all over our cars, in our yard, and all of our neighbors are still speaking to us.

I hope that for your sake you will have the opportunity to move out of the South quite soon. It sounds as if you like some things about the South, but not the people. And that can't be much fun.

There are many liberal Southerners, but perhaps we aren't always that welcoming to those from outside our region. Perhaps before you move from the South, you'll get to know a few of us.

BTW, I live in Florida, where you can get by with wearing white even before Memorial Day.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

218. Winter white, perhaps...

but not white-white. ;-)

Take care.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. My aren't we bitter about little Johnny not making the team.

Let's see you tried to buy a spot on the team for your son for over $10,000 and you are accusing others of being untrustworthy. MMMkay.


David

[wilt the stilt]

154. didn't try to buy a spot

the point is don't ask kids to fund raise until they make the team. that is all. Is that too much too ask?

[wilt the stilt]

155. I see your ethics are just like the coach's.

nothing wrong with using people before the kid makes a team. Interesting that my daughter is a cheerleader and no one on those squads are asked to fund raise until they make the team. There is something inherently wrong with asking kids who don't make the team to fund raise for the team. I guess you don't see that. By the way, this coach is hated by many parents and even by the staff within the school and no one could believe what he did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. I don't have a dog in the fight. Just making an observation.

[wilt the stilt]

199. answer the question

Is it right to ask kids to fund raise for a team before they make it

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

200. You didn't ask a question until this post.

I guess that would depend. If you don't like the practice you should take it up with the school board.

David

[wilt the stilt]

202. the question is to you

not the school board. do you think it is okay to ask a kid to fund raise before he or she makes a team. yes or no

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

203. It would depend.

If it's voluntary and has no effect on making the team or not. Then I don't see a problem.

David

[wilt the stilt]

217. don't see a problem

let me paint a better picture. After spring season it was mandatory to play summer ball. the cost of summer ball was $1,000. My son had major injury which took 6 months to rehabilitate. When school starts workouts(August) immediately start. Workouts are mandatory and go until tryouts tryouts in Feb. As a parent I am assigned three committees to work on. My son never misses a workout including those over winter break The week of finals there is an email sent out yelling at everyone why wasn't everyone at practice. Two weeks before finals a report came out and every player on the edge of failing was notified by the coach to work harder. My son was not on that list(straight A''s).
The week before tryouts there is a mandatory fundraising meeting. The kids are assigned to raise x amount of money. My son exceeds the money and he does it all by himself. The week of tryouts he is given a team jacket and team sweatshirt. when he doesn't make the team he has to give them back. Every player on the team is shocked he didn't make the team. It was his dream to play since he was young. He never wants to pick up a tool of that sport again. he is completely heartbroken.
There was nothing voluntary in this experience from my son to me. You made a snide comment that I was trying to buy a spot on the team for him. I was helping him live his dream. You must not have kids because you don't understand what goes on in the world of high school sports , what is expected and demanded of the players and the parents.
Any parent would do this for his kid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

220. Where did your $10,000 come in there?

[wilt the stilt]

222. it was fundraising

i went out and fund raised from businesses and it was far more than 10,000. do you still think this type of activity is voluntary. Let me give you an analogy. I take it because you are on this website you are against school prayer. Well, as the christian right says school prayer should be allowed because if you don't want to join in you can leave the room. One of the reason why it isn't allowed is it is coercion. Based on your logic school prayer should be allowed because it is voluntary. am I right that you support school prayer because if you don't like it you can always leave no one is forcing you to do it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

224. I didn't say it was voluntary.

I said if it was voluntary then it might be okay. So if you didn't raise the money for the team what would happen?

David

[wilt the stilt]

229. you start off with an

insulting remark to me and now you try to justify it. like I said in the beginning you are just like this coach in ethics. no understanding of pressure and I'm sure you would say that school prayer is ok it's voluntary

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

231. Get over it dude. He didn't make the team, he may be a better man because of it.

[wilt the stilt]

232. obviously you are young

without kids and like I said you have the same ethics as yhe coach- i guess you believe in prayer in school. it's "voluntary"

[Demeter]

19. Just Say "No Thanks!"

Good grief! That surpasses chutzpah.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. I will be damned before I celebrate "Confederate History"

I'll sooner celebrate the month Sherman brought the Jubilo to Georgia.

They can celebrate their own holiday in their own states, of course, but they found out what happens when they try to set one foot in non-Confederate state: they get their asses kicked inside ten days.

[wackywaggin]

21. Southern values. #1

Stay out of that dentists chair for your whole life if possible. A pliers and a bottle of peach brandy can do the same thing at home.

:bounce: :smoke:

[aquart]

22. Secessionist Traitors Month?

What's not to be proud of?

[madmom]

23. Benedict Arnold Traitors Day Sale..Everything 25% Off!!!!!!

[TankLV]

24. Ahh - celebrate "The Right To Own Slaves And Force The Other State To Do So" day...nice...

"States Rights"?!!! - Why yes, yes it was - for the STATE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES!!!!!

typical (now) repuke values at work...

they are glad I'M not in fucking texASS...!!!

[liberal N proud]

25. So many still fighting that long lost battle

[mitchum]

26. I am highly amused that Confederate Memorial Day occurs on the date...

that Stonewall Jackson was accidentally killed by...Confederates!
I think there is a lesson there about the stupidity and futility of "the lost cause"

[Thothmes]

139. gotta love North Carolinian marksmanship

they killed General Thomas Jackson and almost killed General James Longstreet.

[gratuitous]

29. Home Rule For Hell!

"Yes, thank you, citizen. I believe every citizen should speak up for his own home."

Snarkiness aside (yeah, right), why does every "Southern heritage" defense have to willingly tie that millstone around its neck? If you want to celebrate whatever you think the South has contributed to the well-being of the country, why drag out those symbols of oppression and hatred? They don't advance your cause nearly as much as you think.

[scytherius]

31. As the South (a/k/a GOP) continues to marginalize itself

let us rejoice in their rampant stupidity. I mean, let's face it, the Dems aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch so it is a great help that the GOP keeps shooting itself in the head.

[NorthernSpy]

33. another valuable exercise in turd-polishing...

:eyes:

[geek tragedy]

36. Original title: White Power and Slavery Celebration Day.

But, then they decided to use code words about "Confederate heritage."

[varelse]

43. What does he mean by "Southern" values?

The article at the link doesn't specifically list any.

[EFerrari]

44. Hospitality, treason, slavery? Good question. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Mint Julips, magnolias, the Stars & Bars, whips, chains, and brutality. Hoorah!

[No Elephants]

179. I have no problems with mint juleps or magnolias.

[cherish44]

47. Southern values?

A culture that thought it was OK to enslave generations of human beings? A Confederate holiday is a slap in the face to the millions of African Americans who are Southerners.

[No Elephants]

180. IMO, it's a slap in the face to Americans.

[Bluebear]

48. 'by people who do not respect Southern values' - Ah, what "values" might those be?

[old mark]

51. Confederate Memorial Day sounds OK - honoring the fallen soldiers,

but I'd be skeptical about the rest of the Confederate History Month - Everyone must know their history, but what are people celebrating and what are they suggesting we learn from their history?

If it's just an excuse for a party, save me some barbecue and a Dr. Pepper.
My family lost people in both armies in that war, and I believe some think it's still being fought - or should start again....


mark

[SoCalDem]

56. Many think it never stopped.. they just changed tactics

and now operate covertly.

[No Elephants]

178. Honoring those who fell fighting against the United States of America for

the right to extend slavery to the territories?

I'll pass.

[pnutbutr]

216. high school history

Maybe you should try learning a bit more about civil war history.

[Blue_Tires]

52. southern values?

hell, i could ask 100 people around here what that meant and get 100 different answers...for me, it's one of those RW 'code words' for extreme conservatism, the return of genteel racism and sexism, antiunion, funie theocracy and a general backlash against cultural diversity (their biggest fear)...

I'm surprised they are trying to prop up their 'heritage' month this late in the game...even the most ignorant neo-confederate fanboy knows the demographics in even the deepest south have been radically changing for a generation, and the changes will be more dramatic in the future...this romanticized notion of someday returning to the days of the pre-war, reconstruction, or 20th century pre-civil rights south is long dead and they fucking know it...

[Paladin]

78. Well Said, BT.

This whole Confederate Worship thing will be part of the past in a few years, and good riddance......

[Stevenmarc]

53. Oh FiddleDeeDee break out the red velvet cake and hoop skirts

[TWiley]

55. Mr Henie took Arnold to his first KKK meetin ...... now that is heritage !

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[F.C.James]

64. Looks to me like a pretty intelligent discussion n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

133. LOL!

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

84. Texas does not observe Martin Luther King's birthday as Confederate Memorial Day

Texas observes the federal MLK's Birthday holiday on the third Monday of January. (King was actually born on January 15.) There is also a state holiday called Confederate Heroes Day, observed on January 19, which was Robert E. Lee's birthday. Some years, like 2009, the two holidays coincide.

Texas also observes Juneteenth on June 19. This commemorates the date in 1865 when General Gordon Granger, who had arrived in Galveston to set up a military government following the surrender of Confederate forces in the West, decreed the abolition of slavery.

[struggle4progress]

142. I don't remember Juneteenth being a holiday in Texas. In fact,

I think I lived in Texas more than decade before I ever heard of Juneteenth. Finally I asked some people about it -- and was told It ain't shit

[Paladin]

172. "Some People." Who Were They, A Bunch Of Right-Wing White Guys?

In what part of Texas did you live? Must not have been in any of the larger cities, particularly along the coast. Juneteenth is a significant celebration in the state.....

[struggle4progress]

182. I lived in Dallas and had a construction job with a working class crew that did gigs

across the state, about 1975. The crew was a mix: it included a number of hispanics and African Americans. I didn't have much in common with the white biker-types, so on out-of-town gigs I roomed with some of the African-Americans who I socialized with. The media had recently decided Juneteenth was a big holiday and had run footage of some small family picnics. I'd never heard of it. So one day at lunch in El Paso I asked the AA guys if they celebrated the holiday. They knew what it was but didn't know anybody who celebrated it

I don't have anything against Juneteenth if people want to celebrate it (though of course the Emancipation Proclamation was ultimately much less important than the post-War amendments): there may be groups in Texas that celebrate the day, but it's not a state holiday to my knowledge, and I don't think it was even officially noticed anywhere near where I lived

[cwydro]

85. I grew up in NC

and have lived in Florida since college. I have never even HEARD of Confederate Memorial Day.

I sure as hell never got it as a legal holiday.

[csziggy]

104. I've lived in Florida all my life and never heard of it, either

So if some dumb shit Confederacy lover claims this is a "tradition" they are lying through their ignorant teeth!

If this had been going on when I was in high school, I would have heard about it. My so-called American History teacher spent half the year on the "War of Northern Aggression." We had six weeks on what lying propaganda "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was and how that deluded Yankees into thinking the South was evil. We had absolutely no class time on any history after Lincoln's assassination - ignoring the last (at that point) 100 years of American History.

But Mrs. Dunn certainly did not mention anything about a Confederate Memorial Day, which she would have loved.

[cobalt1999]

91. My family has been in the south since well before the civil war.

They fought and died fighting for the south, even though they voted against secession. My Great-great-grandfather took a leg wound on one of the last days of the war, he served in the Florida Legislature as a senator after the war, the family also lost a lot during some of the corruption of reconstruction.

My point is, I have more family legacy tied up in the south than most of these people, and even I don't think this is a good idea.

If people want to talk about the civil war legacy, it should be as a warning how a small number of very rich men can start a war that kills thousands of average people that just get sucked into it.

Here in Florida 4, FOUR counties had land suitable for the plantation/slave labor system. The people of the state voted against secession, but the money guys made the decision for everyone. They lived. Some of my family didn't.

[nichomachus]

93. The invention of the "white race"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

Always worth watching -- Tim Wise on the invention of the white race

[Occam Bandage]

95. The South is a lovely place with lovely people. But fuck the neo-Confederate dickheads.

[PA Democrat]

109. It's not just the South.

While dropping my daughter off at school last week, I saw a pickup truck with a HUGE Confederate flag flying from a pole mounted in the bed of the truck, and then TWO more vehicles with Confederate flag vanity plates on the front bumpers. All were driven by high school students.

When my son graduated last year, an admitted neo-Nazi student (who regularly made racist remarks in class, and frequently wore her Hitler t-shirt to school) was cheered loudly by her parents who were waving... you guessed it, a Confederate flag.

My son was frequently called a "n***** lover" because he was good friends with the handful of kids at his high school who were not white.

Racism is alive and thriving in many parts of the country.

[No Elephants]

183. My cousin's daughter was a skinhead in Massachusetts. However, she had been born in

Mississippi, where her father, whom she romanticized, still lives. I have no idea about her fellow Massachusetts skinheads. (Shudder) This was about 15-20 years ago.

[Hekate]

110. Well isn't that special?

:eyes:

[Raine]

114. NO thanks

keep your holiday, want no part of it. x(

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ColbertWatcher]

118. If anyone is interested ...

... I started a page for Confederate Memorial Day on the Truthiness Encyclopedia.

So, if anyone is so inspired, you are welcome to add your own jokes to the page (just remember to register a free account, so no one can see your IP address)

Have fun: http://www.wikiality.com/Confederate_Memorial_Day

[aikoaiko]

123. Live and let live.

Its a big part of the history of The South.

[Marr]

128. Interesting that they suddenly need to commemorate their "heritage" in this way, now that

we have a black president.

Interesting.

[comrade snarky]

130. Just a coincidence I'm sure

After all, it's just about heritage right? :sarcasm:

[Sgent]

138. Not to defend them

but I remember the celebrations of Robert E. Lee's birthday / Confederate Memorial Day / Jan 19 in the early 1990's in north Mississippi. The SCV (Son's of Confederate Veterans) have been celebrating it for years.

[santamargarita]

136. Let's all burn a Confederate Flag to celebrate

Anyone at DU good with Adobe Photoshop?

[NaturalHigh]

144. I always love these South-bashing threads.

Let's see - toothless, racist, brutal, bitter, traitorous - what did I miss? Is it any wonder the Democrats struggle in the South when the hatred of the South and its citizens is so obvious? Never mind that many Southerners consistently vote for Democrats and donate money to Democratic candidates.

If anyone posted the same comments about other groups that they post about Southerners, they would be banned from DU. The double standard is absolutely bewildering.

Yes, there are assholes in the South. There are also assholes in the North and on the beloved, almost worshipped, West Coast.

[suzie]

149. Well, it could be worse.

The same folks could come South and say the same things as on this thread to local southern Democrats when talking about how to elect more Democrats.

Oh wait, I forgot--they do that. It's such an uplifting thing to hear one voice after another saying, "I'm from New York, New Jersey, Indiana" for the next 25 minutes to explain to a local meeting of Democrats what dumb, ignorant, corrupt racist folks Southerners are.

[mykpart]

150. Yeah, must be because all Southerners are inbred!

:rofl:

[NaturalHigh]

151. Yeah, because we know that all the problems have been solved...

in New York, New Jersey, and Indiana. It's all tangerine trees and marmalade skies up there.

[Marr]

174. Oh, please.

People are responding to the Southerners who want an official celebration of the Confederacy, which is pretty sickening. If you can show me another group of people who want to enshrine racism or treason and are embraced by this community, I'll agree that these Southerners are being unfairly condemned.

As far as hostility goes, I've seen way, way more regional hatred *from* southerners towards everybody else. For some reason, it's considered acceptable. National politicians can refer to the south as 'the real America', GW Bush can condemn his opponent simply for being from the Northeast, etc., etc. Southern politicians use "California" and "San Francisco" as shorthand for evil itself-- and they always seem to get a reaction.

When was the last time you heard a politician use "southern" as an insult?

[badgervan]

184. We Bash With The Hope...

... that the South stops retarding the rest of the nation. I figure another 2, maybe 3, generations and the South will have finally weeded the neocons and Confederacy lovers out of their electorate, and just maybe their general population. As a native Northerner who married a Southern belle and lived in the deep South for many years, I can verify this: the South, or too much of it, has never gotten over losing that Civil War, and have no special respect for the Yankees who live among them... I witnessed a lot of contempt and a barely disguised, kind of low-grade, hate.
I would like to see states like Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama allowed to secede and set up their own "nation". How long would they last? Ten years? Less? The South continues to receive outsized financial aid from the rest of the nation, as compared to what they pay in. This o.k. with you? Yeah, I thought so.

[treestar]

191. It is bashing to recognize there are assholes there who think

the Confederacy deserves a holiday?

Naturally the South will get bashed as long as it still contains these jerks.

Just as any entity is, for instance, the entire US for Gitmo and the rest.

[comrade snarky]

201. Tracy CA may have been the West Coast hub

Of Klan activity but no one here is promoting a state holiday to commemorate it are they?

Get down off the cross, there are plenty of groups who get mocked on DU.

[citizen snips]

145. well one of my ancestors fought for the Confederacy

my great great great great grandfather is even on civil war monument.However, my honest opinion is just keep the skeletons in the closet. My family has never celebrated the inception of the CSA. But we are not offended if others folks decide to celebrate it.

[classysassy]

146. "my ancestor never had slaves"

Whenever I hear that statement,it really tick me off,if your ancestors were involved in anyway with slavery,they helped to prolong that sick,sinfull peculiar institution.There were the overseers,the owners let them have their way with the slaves,if they didn't kill or injury them,so if you want to join the celebration,go for it but leave me out,and shame on the ones that celebrate.

[NNN0LHI]

159. Why would someone want to celebrate brothers killing brothers?

[BlooInBloo]

160. Because that's how they roll. It's a you-kinda-have-to-be-there thing.

[Starry Messenger]

177. No thanks!

"but Texas and Arkansas observe it on Jan. 19, the federal holiday for slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr." says it all really.

[tammywammy]

189. See post 84

[LostinVA]

198. VA has Lee-Jackson Day on MLK Day

Lee is one thing -- and bad enough, even though he was anti-slavery -- but Stonewll Jackosn was a ravidly racist FREEPER.

[PM Martin]

190. "Confederate Day" April 20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

[Zhade]

204. Um, that "legacy" is RACISM.

You guys sure you want to celebrate that?

[No Elephants]

208. Anyone notice how many low count posters are on this thread? On other boards, I've noticed

that some posters show up only when someone posts against current celebrations of the Confederate flag or something of that nature. On another board, one actually pointed out the "advantages" of being a slave, like eating the food belonging to your owner.

Admitting to yourself that slavery was heinous and secession was treason is very hard. Trying to be sentimental and nostalgic about it, or defend it, though, only compounds things.

[Norrin Radd]

211. Hail Cascadia!

j/k

I grew up near Atlanta (born in Penna). So I consider myself a Southerner, but kids growing up attempted to taunt me by calling me a Yankee, but that never bothered me. Now, the only celebration down South I care about is Dragon*Con, the geek holiday.

[Obamarama]

215. And people wonder why there's so much "South bashing" on DU....

Uh, this would be a prime example of why some of the ways of the South are questioned and ridiculed here.

[WeDidIt]

226. Some Values, there. Treason

The South started the War of Southern Treason.

[ddeclue]

228. I am a fan ot the NEW South...not the old...

"There was a South of slavery and secession - that South is dead. There is now a South of union and freedom - that South, thank God, is living, breathing, and growing every hour," 1886 - Henry W. Grady, Atlanta Journal Constitution journalist and founder of the Georgia Institute of Technology

Men like Henry W. Grady, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King III, and Andrew Young are who we should be admiring in the South, not men who were on the wrong side of history like Lee and Davis.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL


P.S.: Great but true story about Henry Grady from Wiki:

"Grady's prestige reached such a height that he became the only non-member ever to adjourn the Georgia Legislature. It occurred on the election of Grover Cleveland to the presidency. News of the close contest arrived at 11 a.m. during the Legislature's session. In his exuberance, Grady rushed to the Capitol with the announcement. He brushed past the door keeper and into the chamber shouting in senatorial tones, "Mr. Speaker, a message from the American people." Sensing the purpose of the intrusion, the Speaker offered Grady a place by his side. However, Grady strode up the aisle to the Speaker's desk, grabbed the Speaker's gavel, and cried out, "In the name of the American people, I declare this House adjourned in honor of the election of the first Democratic President in twenty-five years."

Donchaluvit?